Advice on my HB/CT

MissMoneypenny

broughton_man wrote: »

Hi
Thank you for your help and advice here, i have tryed them boards but got real answer, i'm going back to see an immigration lawyer tomorrow to try and find out as i was sent this today from welfare rights, its still a real worry for me it really is, i get no sleep with worry trying to find out the correct advice, anyway thank you for your words and advice it was very helpfull
Income support, premiums will be paid at couples rate but our authority CPAG a copy of which we have sent you says it could affect his right to remain but we have no experience of further leave being refused because of this.

Immigration lawers aren't benefits' experts; just as benefits' staff aren't immigration experts.

Here is one thread from immigrationboards
http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=88528&sid=cc7b601793d45b793be61f6aa1b81cda

It's hard, as benefits' people try to pay the claimant the extra they think you should have as a couple, even though they are told that the person has "no recourse to public funds"; while the visa conditions say "no" to extra welfare for some benefits.

One persons partner was paid the single rate for LHA, when he should have only had the shared room rate; but he had to put his new wife on the claim, hence why the council paid the single room rate, despite the fact they had no recourse to public funds! They just kept writing to the council informing them that they were not alllowed this extra money and kept sending all the extra money back as they didn't want this to affect her furture application for ILR. They got really worried too as her visa conditions meant she could not have this money. I think they got their MP to speak to the council in the end and tell them to only pay the shared room rate (no extra money for the person subject to visa conditions) and keep the wife on the claim, as any income from her would affect his claim.

mikey_bach

The DMG, tells the I.S SDM what to pay the customer who is an I.S claimant
who has the parter with no recourse to public funds.

I just cant get my head around one goverment deprtment would willingly undermine another

Miss MP
Its a absolute disgrace if it does effect the OPs partner.
He is trying so hard to do everything right

MissMoneypenny

broughton_man wrote: »

Knowing my luck i will be the one who gets refused!! its a sad day for me, i'm not looking for tea as they say, i'm just looking to do things in the rules and being with the one person i love so much, you dont know how much i have prayed to be well and get back to work, i have terminal cancer and want to marry the one person i love and because of this rule of taking a couples rate i could be alone straight after the marrigae as the further leave to remain could be cancelled, if i tell you how much i have cryed today a grown man crying, but i dont know what else i can do only pray and hope we can find a way of being together for a short time that i have left, Thank you Mike and the others for the posts it was a blessing to have had your help, i will keep you all informed thank you everyone God bless

It's frustrating, but get on immigrationboard, claiming benefits board and see if any of the posts mirror your situation ,or start your own thread there.
http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewforum.php?f=38&sid=cc7b601793d45b793be61f6aa1b81cda

You could also email UKBA and ask them. The above board will be able to give you that email address.

enabledebra

I've been trying to find some real info about this particular situation and there is nothing that I can see. All of the literature and the immigration tribunal decisions I've found talk about how public funds are viewed when deciding leave to ENTER the UK. ie can the public funds of the partner not subject to immigration control be taken into account when they decide if the sponsoring partner has enough money to support the partner without getting extra public funds from the state. They also look at whether there is the potential for the partner to get more public funds from the state if entry is granted. The issue seems to be not to increase the pull on the public purse.
If it's the case that the sponsors entitlement to public funds stays the same or goes down and the partner doesn't attempt to claim public funds in their own name this just isn't a problem- that's why there's no clear information, it seems to be a complete non- issue.

MissMoneypenny

mikey_bach wrote: »

The DMG, tells the I.S SDM what to pay the customer who is an I.S claimant
who hasa parter with no recourse to public funds.

I just cant get my head around one goverment deprtment would willing undermine another

Miss MP
Its a absolute disgrace if it does effect the OPs partner.
He is trying so hard to do everything right

I think the problem seems to be that benefit offices are geared for partner claims only and don't seem to cater for partner claims where one is subjuct to "no recourse to public funds". They see "partner" and just increase the claim amount. However, they need that partner on that claim as I assume capital, earnings etc, affect income related claims? The claimant can't claim extra for a partner; but "public funds" doesn't seem to be all benefits it seems, just to add to the problem!

If you read that claiming benefits board link I posted, you will see the problems many have with the various welfare departments who keep trying to pay them money they shouldn't have!

Hopefully the new immigration rules and the welfare reforms centralising claims, will sort this out in future, but it doesn't help the OP now. Hence why I suggested that he posted on that board as they have seen it all before or ask UKBA/ see his MP and get them to write to UKBA, to get the correct information. This board here is just a benefits board and not an 'immigration and benefits' board.

MissMoneypenny

broughton_man wrote: »

i have asked my M.P. today to write to the DWP to find out why it has to be paid, but all immigration lawyers say is dont take the extra if your worried, were not benefit advisers and then immigration say check with a benefits advisor talk about going round and round

UKBA are the ones who make the immigration visa decisions, so perhaps your MP might get a clearer answer from them?

I would be interested in the reply you receive and I'm sure immigrationboards would be too.

MissMoneypenny

broughton_man wrote: »

i could be alone straight after the marrigae as the further leave to remain could be cancelled,

The won't cancel his FLR for that, so don't worry. None of any overclaims will come to light until you apply for his ILR, in 2 years time and maybe not even then as the claim is in your name. You have plenty of time to sort this/pay back anything you shouldn't have had, so don't worry.

You are doing the right thing to sort it now and it is very frustrating to find out what you can and can't have, but he won't have his visa cancelled over anything you shouldn't have received.

MissMoneypenny

You seem to have had quite a lot of answers to your thread on immigrationboards last month.
http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=105223

enabledebra

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

You seem to have had quite a lot of answers to your thread on immigrationboards last month.
http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=105223

And it seems to tally with everything we have all found.

mikey_bach

Checked with the DM, you will get both Couple DP and couple EDP.
and she explained it will be alright with immigration as the partner with the no right to recourse isnt claiming benefit, the customer the OP is not getting an increase in his personal allowance, he is entitled to extra money in the way of the DP and EDP, but is still being treated as a single claimant......
as the partner who has no NINO is not on the claim.