pension credit - mixed age couple with NRPF partner

Client may be entitled to PC, gets AA & no one gets CA or UC carer element.

Partner is under pension age & has NRPF, is working.

I know that client can claim PC as a single person (reg 5 (3)-(5) PC Regs). But is partner’s income taken into account? It seems that it may not be, as there is no reference to the calculation of income and capital, as there is in reg 3 UC Regs. Nor is there any reference to calculation of the PC appropriate minimum guarantee.

Which brings me to the severe disability addition. If the partner is treated as not a member of the same household, does that mean client should still get it?

Schedule 1, para 1 PC Regs talks about ‘a claimant who has no partner’ - which you’d think would not apply. BUT the definition of ‘partner’ (reg 1), refers back to being a member of a couple. And that refers to being ‘members of the same household’, which they are treated as not being.

However, there’s still the issue of normally residing with a person over 18, & that (Sched 1, para 1(a)(ii)) doesn’t mention households.

https://www.turn2us.org.uk/Benefit-guides/Nationals-of-non-European-Economic-Area-(EEA)-coun/My-partner-is-a-person-subject-to-immigration-cont#guide-content

Suggests income is ignored but that the severe disability addition isn’t possible as client is still normally residing with partner.

So I think that’s the answer. Nice about the income though - first positive thing I’ve found about mixed age couples!

It’s probably worth raising with them as to whether they’re looking to get her any kind of regular immigration status Will.

We had a recent similar case and the wife was awarded ILR, which meant that PC/HB awards both terminated and they were literally thousands of pounds worse off as a result. They had no idea this would happen and said they would have had second thought about securing the wife’s status.

Of course, there are all sorts of other reasons why they might want to try and ensure her ability to regularise her status but it’s maybe worth a mention?

Interesting one, Will.

Without having looked too closely, it would only appear to work if they’re married or civil partners. Otherwise they would still be considered a ‘couple’, and therefore ‘partners’, no?

Furthermore, for the SDA, the younger partner would have to be co-owner or jointly liable to the rent, otherwise they couldn’t get the SDA due to having another person normally residing with them.

EDIT: Sorry, just saw your edit!

Oh yeah absolutely Paul. I’ve pointed out that if status changes then it’s UC (which I think they probably wouldn’t be entitled to due to the combined income, although it would include LCWRA after first 3 months, & carer element).
I hadn’t quite thought about that meaning maybe don’t rush to regularise status…but I completely see what you mean.

Thanks Charles - yes, they are married - I see your point about the distinction there.

SDA is a no, as I realised after posting, hence the edit.

WillH - 22 October 2021 01:16 PM

Thanks Charles - yes, they are married - I see your point about the distinction there.

SDA is a no, as I realised after posting, hence the edit.

Unless they are co-owner or jointly liable to the rent. See Para. 2(6) of Sched. 1 to the Regs. (Subject to Para. 3(3).