Child Benefit or not?

We have a client who is Russian/Norwegian.

Client doesn’t work, and came to UK in 2018 .
Client has pre settled status
Client was claiming UC - but this has now been stopped – client not told why - presumably because she PSS and no other right to reside.

Client also claimed CB, which was awarded, and paid, between March 2019 and August 2019 when a decision was made to stop the claim as she did not have a right to reside.

Client has 2 children and both are British and in FT education.

Cannot see why Norwegian with Pre SS and 2 British children in FT education, living in UK since 2018, should not be able to claim Child Benefit.

Does anyone have any ideas/points about the above?

For CB you require a qualifying right to reside which is not given by pre-settled status, CB is not the same as UC in that a right to reside as a jobseeker is not excluded for CB, however a right to reside as a jobseeker is limited due to the gpow test.

So more information is needed, she previously had UC and CB so what right of reside did she have then, she is not working but does she have a history of work, did she have a right to reside from a family member if so what has now changed.  Having british kids doesn’t help.

Ignore the pre-settled status and go through all the usual right to reside routes.

roecab - 12 January 2022 04:29 PM

Cannot see why Norwegian with Pre SS and 2 British children in FT education, living in UK since 2018, should not be able to claim Child Benefit.

This is a bit of a blending of the distinct concepts of the Zambrano and Teixiera species of ‘derivative’ rights to reside.

Your client might have a Zambrano right to reside insofar as she is the primary carer of a British national, however only if it is the case that the children would be unable to remain in the EU if your client were to leave the UK. However this does you no good for UC and ChB purposes anyway, as the Zambrano right is specifically excluded.

In order to have a Teixiera right to reside, your client would need to be a primary carer of the child of an EEA worker (or a former worker) who is in full-time education. The reason why this doesn’t apply is that, at least on the basis of the facts provided, your client is the only EEA national parent and she has never worked in the UK (I assume that the father is British based on you saying that the child is British). If your client was a worker at some point, then perhaps there would be an argument here.

Thank you both, I will feedback to client and get more details.

But seems clear from the above, so thank you both again.