Wife refused HB because she is not working and not on JSA

dktreesea

FBaby wrote: »

You seem to forget that many EEA members work and pay high tax in this country and have done so for many years.

True, but then they have contributed. I am all for letting people who have paid into the system claim if need be.

What I am less keen on is people coming over here who have never paid into the system but are able to claim from day 1. Not just for themselves but for their family members, regardless of whether they are an EEA national or not.

clemmatis

Confuseddot wrote: »

I am confused(for a change) if you are a couple one of you earns the other doesn't. Then the one that doesn't earn can apply for HB regardless of the others details ? Is that the rules or am I missing something.

The partner's income is taken into account.

dktreesea

It sounds like the OP's wife is not able to claim because she is neither in work, nor can she persuade the DWP that she is seeking work due to being heavily pregnant, since she needs to seek work and be able to show a reasonable expectation of getting work.

Yet another anomaly, because had the situation been reversed, i.e. the wife was studying and pregnant, and the OP was looking for work, this situation wouldn't have arisen. The benfits would have continued on interrupted, regardless of his wife's condition/studying.

dktreesea

epitome wrote: »

Why do you continue to imply in your posts that new arrivals from EU are exempt from HRT for benefits ?

Your HRT exemption only applies to HB it does not apply to JSA ESA, IS... etc

Your main argument makes no sense, I know what you are saying, but you are comparing apples with pears, as you well know.

Your Brits who go from New York to France and then to UK, when they arrive in UK will only be able to get HB they will not get JSA, IS or ESA.

Always assuming a British person with a non EEA national spouse (as opposed to an EEA national in the same situation, is well off enough to be able to come back here with their spouse in tow, i.e. has income of over £18,600 per annum!

Even prior to this latest restriction on Brits coming home, there was the requirement to show sufficient funds to maintain oneself and one's non EEA national spouse for 2 years, before he/she was granted a settlement visa.

There is no such restriction on EEA nationals coming here to settle with their non EEA national spouse. No requirements for income or funds.

Why should Brits have to live in Europe for a year prior to coming home just so they can receive equal treatment with other EEA nationals? And maybe now, since the income requirements have come into play, this method (which worked to avoid the maintenance funds requirement) may not work.

FBaby

dktreesea wrote: »

It sounds like the OP's wife is not able to claim because she is neither in work, nor can she persuade the DWP that she is seeking work due to being heavily pregnant, since she needs to seek work and be able to show a reasonable expectation of getting work.

Where did it say she actually did want to work?

Housing_Benefit_Officer

FBaby wrote: »

So if the issue is about the wife being denied HB on the basis that she is not eligible for JSA under the PFA rules how did this happen?

The wife is being treated as PFA as she does not qualify for JSA because of her husbands income. She would qualify is her husband had nil income - and this is the problem. She shouldn't be treated as a person from abroad in the first place and therefore it shouldn't matter if she doesn't get JSA as the HB/LCTS claims would be processed using her husbands income only.

dktreesea

FBaby wrote: »

Where did it say she actually did want to work?

She probably doesn't want to work. I was merely pointing out that even if she did say she wanted to, in an attempt to qualify for JSA (not withstanding her household income might mean she wouldn't get it anyway) and therefore HB, this might not work, because you have to be available for work and have a reasonable expectation of getting work.

dktreesea

Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »

The wife is being treated as PFA as she does not qualify for JSA because of her husbands income. She would qualify is her husband had nil income - and this is the problem. She shouldn't be treated as a person from abroad in the first place and therefore it shouldn't matter if she doesn't get JSA as the HB/LCTS claims would be processed using her husbands income only.

Is it possible because the wife is a non EEA national, so her habitual residency and right to reside are derived from the OP's status, she then is not entitled to HB because he is not entitled to it (due to being a student?)

epitome

dktreesea wrote: »

Always assuming a British person with a non EEA national spouse (as opposed to an EEA national in the same situation, is well off enough to be able to come back here with their spouse in tow, i.e. has income of over £18,600 per annum!

Even prior to this latest restriction on Brits coming home, there was the requirement to show sufficient funds to maintain oneself and one's non EEA national spouse for 2 years, before he/she was granted a settlement visa.

There is no such restriction on EEA nationals coming here to settle with their non EEA national spouse. No requirements for income or funds.

I'm sure that those EEA nationals coming from New York or Hong Kong will have exactly the same restictions as the Brit.

Why should Brits have to live in Europe for a year prior to coming home just so they can receive equal treatment with other EEA nationals? And maybe now, since the income requirements have come into play, this method (which worked to avoid the maintenance funds requirement) may not work.

Because they are coming from outside Europe and therefore will have stringent UK regs to get over. We are part of EU and therefore we have relaxed rules for people including our own returning from Europe. So if the people returning to Europe can find a European country to support them first to make their arrival into UK easier then all power to them for finding a loophole.

You are comparing apples with pears and there really is no point.

buglawton

Wow has this thread got legs!
What impresses me is that the quality of the debate - and maybe the importance of the topic - is as high as debates I've heard that took place in Parliament.