Pension Credit and mixed aged rules
So to clarify - do you think it is arguable that as had HB pre May 19 - that her change means that HB continues and so can then add the partner to PC claim?
I think you might need Peter/HBAnorak to clarify the status of the HB award, to be sure.
Article 2(4)(b) of the CO31 as I referenced and which covers the interpretation of terms in the rest of the CO31 states:
(4) In this Order—
(a)a person is entitled to state pension credit or housing benefit on any day where the person has made a claim for that benefit and the conditions of entitlement are met in relation to that person, regardless of whether, respectively, entitlement begins on a later day under—
(i)regulation 16A (date of entitlement under an award of state pension credit for the purpose of payability and effective date of change of rate) F13 of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987; or
(ii)regulation 57 (date on which entitlement is to commence) of the Housing Benefit SPC Regulations; and
(b)[F14save in article 7(3)(a),] a reference to claiming or entitlement to state pension credit or housing benefit as part of a [F15mixed-age] couple is a reference to [F16a person claiming or] being so entitled, on the basis that [F17the person] is a member of a couple or F18… a polygamous marriage.
So it’s saying that the reference to claiming HB on 14 May 2019 in Article 4 must mean a claim made as a mixed-age couple. Hence why the PC award doesn’t meet that benchmark as it was definitely being paid on the basis of your client being a single person.
As the other posts I made referencing CPAG imply that the HB award in analogous circumstances is made on the basis of being in a couple, regardless of the PFA status of the wife. I don’t know how that works in the HB regs but assuming this is the case and they are treated as a member of a couple, then that appears to satisfy the above interpretation and therefore Article 4 savings provisions would apply as there was a qualifying HB award in payment on 14 May 2019 and that has continued in payment ever since.
Many thanks, let’s see if HB can shed any light or confirm - seems too good to be true - of course in the meantime client left with nothing, and might not be able to hang..
Many thanks again, it is appreciated.
I submit myself to anything Peter has to say on this, but my understanding is that prior to the rule in Art 7 of the No 31 CO as amended, any HB claim by a couple in these circumstances would have been as a couple, and Art 7 doesn’t apply to existing claimants.
I therefore think you are definitely correct that his HB/PC should continue after she lost her NRPF status.
Just popping by to say I agree. Busy old week!
very briefly and without detailed analysis:
- the older partner has been on HB since before May 2019
- it has been administered at all material times under the SPC-age version of the HB Regs
- in the eyes of the HB scheme he has at all material times been a member of a mixed age couple (that is the key), therefore transitional Article 4 is satisfied
Ace, thanks to you all.