Extended Payment

I have a client who was getting IBJSA for approx 17 months before he went back to work. However, in August before he ended his IBJSA claim he was sanction for two separate periods for one week at a time.

Problem is now that HB state he wasn’t in receipt of IBJSA for at least 26 weeks so cannot be paid the extended payment.

I am sure that I read somewhere, once, that if he was in a sanction he was still entitled but not paid so would that not mean continuous?

Thanks in advance.

Think the answer is that have to be entitled to and in receipt off…so if not paid then not good enough?

Is that right?

Any ideas warmly received.

Reg 72(1)(c) of the HB Regs says “entitled to and in receipt of”.  However, reg 2(3)(a) says that “for the purposes of these regulations a person is on an income based jobseekers allowance on any day….” on which be is being sanctioned.  Does the different wording matter?  I’d argue that it doesn’t unless there’s definitive case law to say it does.

That’s my reading of it as well.

Reg. 72 (1)(c) HB Regs - “the claimant or the claimant’s partner had been entitled to and in receipt of a qualifying income-related benefit, jobseeker’s allowance or a combination of those benefits for a continuous period of at least 26 weeks before the day on which the entitlement to a qualifying income-related benefit ceased.”

A qualifying income-related benefit is defined as IS, income-based JSA or income-related ESA. as defined in Reg. 2(1)

Edit: I stand corrected by previous poster (Nevip): worth making argument that a person being on [Re.g 2(3) (a)]  is the same as being in receipt of

That’s great, thanks. It makes perfect sense to me.

i think that reg 2(3)(a) that nevip refers to is only there to allow for the wording of the regs regarding non dependant deductions. These do specifically talk about someone being ‘on’ JSA. This then makes sure that there will still be no deduction when a under 25 yo non dep is being sanctioned

(sorry, no references as I’m writing from memory only)

You can’t construe it that narrowly, as the reg says “for the purposes of these regulations”.  That means all of them.  If the draftsman had wanted a narrow construction he could have easily done so by saying, for example “for the purposes of reg…”

Nevip,

We now have the HB submission. It states that Regulation 2(3)(a) refers to section 19 of JSA Act 95 i.e. sanction as such he was not in payment but was entitled so both heads of extened payment regulations not met, which is entitled too and in receipt of

However, they also refer to Schedule 7 part 1, 1a but this was omitted from 2008 by http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/959/regulation/4/made

This does not seem to limit the argument you gave me, what do you think?

I stand by my original point.  I don’t know what else to add really.

I agree, I think

For the purposes of these Regulations, a person is on an income-based jobseeker´s allowance on any day in respect of which an income-based jobseeker´s allowance is payable to him and on any day

(a)

in respect of which he satisfies the conditions for entitlement to an income-based jobseeker´s allowance but where the allowance is not paid in accordance with regulation 27A of the Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations or section 19 or 20A or regulations made under section 17A of the Jobseekers Act (circumstances in which a jobseeker´s allowance is not payable);

Is very clear

Of course the Council’s reading off it would also mean waiting days would not count when the Reg sets that out too.

Thanks a lot, it is sometimes very helpful to get a second opinion, which also stops you feeling you’ve gone mental.