Social_Security_Law

Within this essay we are asked to comment on Stacey’s entitlement to income support. To do this we must examine the nature of Bradley and Stacey’s relationship and consider the effect Stacey’s sewing and working at her friend’s café will have on her entitlement to claim income support. Essentially, Income Support is a means tested, benefit paid to certain groups of people who do not have enough money to live on. As it is means-tested, any money that a person has or receives is taken into account in deciding whether someone should receive Income Support.[1] In addition, Income Support is a non-contributory benefit. This means that Income Support can be claimed even if a person has never paid national insurance. There is no need to examine whether Stacey is initially entitled to income support as she is already in receipt of it thus she must have already satisfied the conditions of entitlement under s.124-134 of the Social Security Contribution and Benefits Act 1992 [2] We simply must examine if Stacey is entitled to continue receiving her income support. The first question we must ask is how will Stacey’s relationship with Bradley effect her entitlement' Section 124 (1) (c) of the Act states that “…if he/she is a member of a married or unmarried couple the other member should not be engaged in remunerative work”. [3] The word “unmarried” here means “a man and a woman who are not married to each other but are living together as husband and wife. Otherwise than in prescribed circumstances”[4]. The Civil Partnership Act states the same for same sex unmarried cohabiting couples too. [5] If Stacey and Bradley are regarded as an unmarried couple when making any calculation regarding Stacey’s eligibility for Income Support Bradley’s financial circumstances would have to be taken into account. This is called the principal of Aggregation. “Where a person is claiming income related benefit is a member of a family, income and capital of any member of that family, except in proscribed circumstances, be treated as the income and capital of the person making the claim.”[6] To determine whether Stacey and Bradley are a couple and therefore whether Bradley’s financial circumstances need to be taken into account and aggregated when considering Stacey’s income support claim we must analyse the 6 factors set out in the key case of R(SB) 17/81[7]. These are; Members of the Same Household. In Crake v Supplementary Benefits Commission[8] the fact a man and a woman lived together in the same household does not amount to "living together as husband and wife," though it might afford strong evidence of that fact. Although Bradley visits Stacey’s house frequently Bradley still sleeps at his own flat most nights. This may indicate that Bradley and Stacey are not a couple for the purposes of the Act. Even if Bradley did stay over on more than one occasion they claim to sleep in separate bedrooms. Following the case of Robson v Secretary of State for Social Services [9] this shows no intention to live in the same household and therefore they cannot be considered a couple for the purposes of the Act. Furthermore following Butterworth v Supplementary Benefits Commission [10] it must be shown that Bradley and Stacey were not just living in the same house but were living therefore all purposes as husband and wife Stability of the relationship is another factor to be examined. In this instance Bradley and Stacey are not living together as a couple and have no intention to marry or live together. They have not made a commitment to each other,[11] thus they could not be regarded as having a stable relationship of an unmarried cohabiting couple, living as a family. Another crucial issue that is examined is financial support. Although Bradley takes Stacey shopping every week, it does not mean he pays for it, and it appears that Bradley does not provide financial support for Stacey in relation to her household bills or children in any way. Absence of a Sexual relationship usually is evidence that a couple in question are not living together as husband and wife. In the case of CSB/150/1985 [12] a couple were not regarded as living together as husband and wife as they were Mormons, thus had no sexual relationship. In this case if Bradley stays the night he sleeps in the spare bedroom thus, although not conclusive, this points away from a sexual relationship between the couple. [13] Children to both parties is strong evidence of a couple living together as a family. Stacey has two children but they are not Bradley’s. Public Acknowledgement is the sixth factor. We do not know if Bradley and Stacey are publicly recognized as a couple, however Stacey has stated they are just friends. Although these factors do not all individually have to be met, when considered alone, they are not conclusive in determining whether a husband and wife relationship exists, but when taken together are a strong indicator in determining who are part of a couple. Bradley and Stacey do not appear to fall into any of these categories, thus they are not in a relationship to satisfy the Act. Stacey should still be eligible to claim Income Support as a loan parent and Bradley’s financial circumstances do not have to be taken into account and aggregated. Stacey’s employment must also be considered in determining her income support entitlement. The Act states that for a person to be eligible to claim income support, “…he has no work or his income does not exceed the applicable amount [14] set by the government”[15] or “…he/she is not engaged in remunerative work and, if a member of a married/unmarried couple, the other member is not engaged for more than 24 hours a week;”[16] The Income Support General Regulations define remunerative work as “work in which a person is engaged on average for more than 16 hours per week for which payment is made, or which is done in expectation of payment.”[17] Stacey receives no income from her employment at the café, but could it be regarded as remunerative work' Stacey only works two days a week, presumably less than 16 hours per week. She is not paid nor has any expectations that she will be paid for her work. As a result Stacey’s work at the Café should not affect her entitlement to claim Income Support. Stacey’s sewing could be classed as remunerative work if the principle in the case of Kazantzis v Chief Adjudication Officer is followed[18]. It is a feasible suggestion that Stacey is self-employed as she sews for several hours a day and then sells her work at her children’s school fairs. It could be argued that her sewing time would count as remunerative work because she is ‘working in anticipation of being paid’ as she knows she will sell her embroidery and sewing at the fairs. If Stacey was working for more than 16 hours a week and her sewing was regarded as remunerative work, Stacey would not be entitled to continue claiming income support. Conversely Stacey may argue that her sewing is a hobby which she does in her spare time. If so there may be an argument to suggest that she is not engaged in remunerative work. She may still be entitled to make some sort of claim for income support as long as the money she received from the children’s fairs fell below the applicable amount. In conclusion Stacy and Bradley would not be classed as living together as a married couple, as they do not meet criteria laid down in R (SB) 17/81 and Stacey should still be eligible for Income Support as a loan parent when considering this factor. The fact that Stacey works at the café should not affect her income support claim either as she presumably works less than 16 hours per week and is not paid nor has expectations that she will be paid for her work. If it is found that Stacey is in remunerative work and has an income from the sewing and embroidery her entitlement to income support will be stopped. However if this income falls below the applicable amount, it could affect the amount of income support Stacey will receive. Stacy may still be entitled to income support, but at a reduced rate, as she will only receive the difference between her income and the applicable amount. BIBLIOGRAPHY Web sites visited www.adviceguide.org.uk Last visited 04/01/2009 http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/rsb/17_81.pdf R (SB) 17/81 supplementary benefits. Last visited 05/01/2009 Cases Butterworth v Supplementary Benefits Commission 1981 2 FLR 264 George Kazantzis v Chief Adjudication Officer 1999 J (Income Support: Cohabitation) 1995 1 FLR 660 R (SB) 17/81 (1981) Robson v Secretary of State for Social Services 1982 FLR232 CSB/150/1985 Crake v Supplementary Benefits Commission [1982] 1 All E.R. 498 Statutes. Income Support General Regulations 1987 The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 Civil Partnership Act 2004 ----------------------- [1] www.adviceguide.org.uk [2] S.124 (1)(a)-(dii) Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 sets out that you must be between 18 and 60, a resident in the UK, have no income or no income that exceeds an applicable amount [3] s.124(1)(c) Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 [4] s.137(1)(b) Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 [5] Civil Partnership Act 2004 section 137 [6] Section 136 (1) Social Security Contribution and Benefits Act 1992. [7] R(SB) 17/81 (1981) [8] Crake v Supplementary Benefits Commission [1982] 1 All E.R. 498 [9] Robson v Secretary of State for Social Services [1982] 3 FLR 232 [10] Butterworth v Supplementary Benefits Commission 1981 2 FLR 264 [11] R(SB) 17/81 (1981) [12] CSB/150/1985 [13] J (Income Support: Cohabitation) 1995 1 FLR 660 [14] The Applicable amount is a set level that the government think it is possible to live from. If a person does work and their income is under the applicable amount the level of money they will receive will be the difference between their wages and the applicable amount. [15] s124 (1) (b) Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 [16] s124 (1) (c) Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 [17] Regulation 5(1) Income Support general regulations [18] George Kazantzis v Chief Adjudication Officer 1999