FLR and public funds

I received a question by email which I'd like to put to y'all because I'm not really sure of the answer.

Best thing is to copy and paste the question:

"My husband is on DLA and Social security benefits because of an accident that happened years ago. And now that l am getting ready to get my indefinite leave soon, this has begun to worry me. The Social Security office has me down as sharing the benefits from my husband and this is not true since l am working and he hasn't claimed me at all on any of them. I know that we can not have recourse to public funds and if they home office checks this out it may not be good for me. SS is attempting to correct this information but it may take some time for them to investigate this!"

Anyone been in this situation or know of someone who has?
It would seem to me that one should keep calling Social Security to correct this, or see if you can get a letter from them to include with one's FLR application, and explain it in a letter to IND in writing as well.

I had been concerned with my FLR application because my hubby was claiming child benefit for our children, which every citizen is entitled to regardless of income, but they didn't seem fussed by that at all. I'm sure this is an entirely different situation to the question posed though. :-/

Hi Leah,

My partner is a Trained Social Worker and Housing Officer for the Borough of Greenwich who works on these types of forms and issues for people getting rehoused, so I got her to give some advice (below).  It is her 2 cents, but definitely the person needs to check with their advisors, etc.......if they want to email us to double check some of the info they are getting, please do.

Becky  

- It is very important that you check your speicific case out with your legal advisor or a rights organisation such as the Citizens Advice bureau.

The general situation when a man and a woman are living together is that they are assummed to share their income.   i.e.  if Mr smith tried to claim a means tested benefit such as income support,  then the Department of work and pensions would want to know what Mrs Smith was earning and if her earnings were above the "applicable amount"  ( the mininum amount that the goverment say that a couple in their circumstanses) need to live on  the Mr Smith would not get any income support in his own right.  DLA however ( like child benefit)  is not means tested.  What matters is whether you meet the criteria for DLA  not what other money you have coming in.   Mr Smith  could be a millionaire  and still get DLA if he met the criteria for benefit.   As such I would not have thought the DLA  would be an issue............

Get proper advice,  but may be the above sheds some light.

Hi there!
l am the one who wrote Leah and asked for any information she could help with.

My hubby has been on DLA and Living allowance for 5 yrs now following a serious accident. I know about the No Recourse to Public funds clause in my visa. Which is fine since l didn't want any anyway. l am very happy to work and will continue to do so until someone above says l need to stop.
Housing benefits called the Social Security dept and said that since we are now married that hubby will now no longer get benefits through housing and also now that we are married my name has been added onto his files and he is getting a different kind of allowance since we are married and his DLA and living allowance has been severely cut! We explained to the SS office that l am not allowed to be claimed on his benefits at all and explained to her that l am an American and that the visa states where l can't have recourse to public funds. She said that she had never come across this and that the DLA and housing should have never been cut at all. They are checking into this and they are suppose to get back to us soon.
This did worry me a bit because of the situation with Home Office and if they check into this it will show that l am now listed on his benefits since the Set M asks for the financial part from my husband and this could limit my chances of getting residency!
Thanks so much for your help on this matter!  

Hi again,

Just to reclarify some points and a little more input.........

as you can attest......this is confusing.

Housing benefit is a means tested benefit.  Therefore,  I can see that this could be seen as you having recourse to public funds.  

If you and your husband are living together as husband and wife,  then if you were both from the UK  you would be assessed as a couple, looking at your joint income.  ( If your husband was not earning then they would be looking at your income alone).  A calculation would be made to see if your salary was more than an the applicable amount for a couple in your circumstances  ( the applicable amount is set by the government each year and is the minimum amount that you would be  expected to live on without being entitled to income support).  If your income was more than the applicable amount,  then you would not get housing benefit,  and your husband would not get any means tested benefits like income support.  However,  he could still be entitled to non means tested benefit,  like DLA  and / or incapacity benefit ( the latter depended on the past national insurance contributions that he made).

Now,  in  your circumstances,  I would have thought that housing benefit could be seen as "recourse to public funds"  but DLA  would not be  ( because of its non means tested nature and the fact that it is your husband, not you claiming it).  If the housing benefit has been taken away,  then you dont need to worry about the 'recourse to public funds' issue,  becasue you are not getting it.  

Couple questions, why has the DLA been cut and what has it been cut to.  Also is the cut actually related to this issue,  or did he perhaps have to resubmit his claim recently to have it reviewed  ( DLA is paid for two different components: mobility and care,  there are two different mobility rates and three different care rates)  periodically  ( unless a lifetime award is made) people have their DLA reviewed and i am just wondering if this has been why the rates have changed (rather than anything to do with your marriage).  

You do need to get proper advice.  This is a very complicated issue and a little beyond my total knowledge base.  Please don't completely rely on what I am saying and certainly do not rely soley on what the benefits agency says -  try the Citizens Advice Bureau, you should be able to find your local Advice Burea in the phone book.

regards

Joisey Girl,
You are awesome for helping me out!! Thank you ever so much for all your help on this issue! l really appreciate the help!! Cheers to you!!! l will be contacting the Citizens Advice on Monday for information!

You are very welcome and good luck.  If you think about it, let us know how you get on.  

Maybe I'm just being silly here, but doesn't it stand to reason that if they were going to give them a hard time about it, they would have done so before when she applied for settlement? I mean he was getting the benefits at that time, at least from what I read. It was also part  of the conditions for SET M application as well. And now he is in fact getting less.  

ok..im not going to pretend to understand this issue..but one thing did pop into my mind when reading this

my husband and i tried to get a tax reduction because of my living with him..they told us no because i wasnt a citizen..ok..no problem...it wouldnt have realy mattered anyhow...but...

if your not a citizen...how can they reduce his benifits because of you...if they cant reduce my taxes?

seems to me like they are using double standards...im not a citizen even tho im married to one..so no tax reducion...but you are married to a citizen with benifits..it dont matter that your not a citizen...so they reduce your benifits...go figure?

but then again...i might be wrong...just had to add this..soryy if im out of line

I have just reread the letter that we got when WL got his leave to remain as my partner. The letter said that the fact that WL could not receive any public funds in benefit did not affect my eligibility for public funds. I take this to mean that if I were to qualify for a pension in the next year, I could get this, support both of us, and not put WL's indefinite leave to remain in jeopardy.

I suspect that this means that I would not qualify for housing benefit (means-tested) if I were on benefit and WL were a millionaire (if only...). It is also obvious that I would not qualify for housing benefit if I were a millionaire and WL was penniless. If we both were penniless, I would qualify and receive the benefit.

Chris
www dot hansenhome dot demon dot co dot uk