Hi Councillor xyz,
Subject: Housing benefit claim where applicants wife has spouse visa with "no recourse to public funds".
Further to your telephone chat, I would be grateful if you could help me with this issue.
My local council are insisting according to their DWP Housing Benefit guidelines (for partners of applicants on a spouse visa with no recourse to public funds) that I, the sponsoring UK national, am required to submit my housing benefit claim with the name and details of both my wife and I fully included on the HB form just as would be the case for a married couple with no immigration restrictions.
However, this would result in me receiving an increase in Housing Benefit payments which would mean my wife would be in breach of her "no recourse to public funds" visa restriction, as outlined in Border Agency Home office Immigration Law (see relevant sections copied below). According to Border Agency guidelines, this would result in the denial of my wife's residency application 2 years down the line at the end of her spouse visa probationary period.
I have copied the relevant section from the above link showing Housing benefit and Council Tax Benefit listed as Public Funds (my highlight in bold):
"public funds" means
(b) attendance allowance, severe disablement allowance, carer's allowance and disability living allowance under Part III of the Social Security Contribution and Benefits Act 1992;, income support, council tax benefit and housing benefit under Part VII of that Act; a social fund payment under Part VIII of that Act; child benefit under Part IX of that Act; income based jobseeker's allowance under the Jobseekers Act 1995, income related allowance under Part 1 of the Welfare Reform Act 2007 (employment and support allowance) state pension credit under the State Pension Credit Act 2002; or child tax credit and working tax credit under Part 1 of the Tax Credits Act 2002.
Clarification of recourse to public funds is provided in 6A - 6C at the end of the page linked above:
6A. For the purpose of these Rules, a person (P) is not to be regarded as having (or potentially having) recourse to public funds merely because P is (or will be) reliant in whole or in part on public funds provided to P's sponsor unless, as a result of P's presence in the United Kingdom, the sponsor is (or would be) entitled to increased or additional public funds (save where such entitlement to increased or additional public funds is by virtue of P and the sponsor's joint entitlement to benefits under the regulations referred to in paragraph 6B).
6B. Subject to paragraph 6C, a person (P) shall not be regarded as having recourse to public funds if P is entitled to benefits specified under section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 by virtue of regulations made under sub-sections (3) and (4) of that section or section 42 of the Tax Credits Act 2002.
6C. A person (P) making an application from outside the United Kingdom will be regarded as having recourse to public funds where P relies upon the future entitlement to any public funds that would be payable to P or to P's sponsor as a result of P's presence in the United Kingdom, (including those benefits to which P or the sponsor would be entitled as a result of P's presence in the United Kingdom under the regulations referred to in to paragraph 6B)".
The Border Agency also explain the same guidelines in a document "Public Funds" - which outlines what UK public funds foreign nationals can claim.
On Page 46 it states:
"Most categories in the Immigration Rules require people to be able to maintain and accommodate themselves without having recourse to public funds. A person should not necessarily be refused leave if their sponsor relies on public funds.
You must check if the applicant has declared on their application form that their sponsor is claiming public funds. You must then check with the relevant issuing authority whether the amount of funds the sponsor receives would increase as a result of the applicant joining them.
Paragraphs 6A-6C of the Immigration Rules explains what the position is when an applicant is not claiming public funds themselves but their sponsor relies on public funds
If a sponsor needs to claim more public funds to support the applicant, you must refuse the application. For example, if the sponsor claims income-based jobseeker’s allowance and this would increase if their dependant was granted leave as their spouse. You must refuse the application under the relevant paragraph of the category under which leave is being sought with reference to paragraph 6A of the rules.
If the sponsor needs to claim more public funds to support the applicant but these are funds that the sponsor and dependant would be jointly entitled to you must not refuse the application. For example, if the increased funds fall under the tax credits regulations, such as Working or Child Tax Credits, then you must not regard the applicant as having accessed public funds."
In order to avoid this breach of the "no recourse to public funds" restriction with housing benefit applications, it has been shown several times by others in the same or similar situations up and down the land that the accepted defacto standard here is to apply as a single person while informing the local authority of any income or savings the partner has. For the sake of securing my future with my wife here in the UK and not undoing the considerable work done to get this far, this is what I would like to do. Your assistance is greatly appreciated.
http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewto ... d01f96083d
http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewto ... 67b7fe1ed7
http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=26916
Many thanks for helping.
Simon