Jump to content

DLA some movement


Llwyncelyn
 Share

Recommended Posts

[quote user="woolybanana"]

Jimmy, Polish people I have almost no experience of, but I do know that the system is not watertight so suggest that children abroad could be fictive. Perhaps a rigorous system of checking should be brought in.

I also think that children's allowance should only be paid for the first say three children in a family, and it might be taxable too.

[/quote]

I agree but would say pay on the first child only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 610
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

From http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/childbenefit/start/who-qualifies/new-arrivals-uk.htm#2

If you've come to the UK but your child has stayed behind

There are different arrangements for Child Benefit depending on whether you are working and have come from an EEA country or not. You will still however need to be responsible for your child.

If you have come to the UK from a country that is outside the EEA or Switzerland you can only qualify for Child Benefit once your child actually arrives in the UK.

If however you have arrived from an EEA country or Switzerland, you can usually get Child Benefit even if your child doesn't come to the UK.

               --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't forget some of us remember not being able to get was 'family allowance' for the first child, my mother only got it for me while my brother was at school, but once he left  that stopped and only started again when my sister was born (there are large age gaps in the ages of my siblings )

Now even children abroad get it - thats a big change...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="woolybanana"]Well, whatever is right, but not allowances which encourage big families paid for by the taxpayer.[/quote]

 But we need all the 'little people' we can get - to pay our pensions.....!!! ( Children not leprechauns or diddy-men !)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Russethouse"]

[quote user="woolybanana"]Well, whatever is right, but not allowances which encourage big families paid for by the taxpayer.[/quote]

 But we need all the 'little people' we can get - to pay our pensions.....!!! ( Children not leprechauns or diddy-men !)

[/quote]

Yeah - if you can get them off benefits when they grow up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="woolybanana"]

Concerning kids, those left abroad or coming to the country from outside the EU area should be blood tested

[/quote]

Yeah, great idea. We could then give them all ID chips like we do with dogs and keep them in special camps. What planet are you on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Jimmy"][quote user="woolybanana"]

Concerning kids, those left abroad or coming to the country from outside the EU area should be blood tested

[/quote]

Yeah, great idea. We could then give them all ID chips like we do with dogs and keep them in special camps. What planet are you on?

[/quote]

At Last, a man who speaks sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guys, after 70 plus pages of keeping to the subject I suppose this had to happen - if you want to change the sense of this thread, why not open another thread to discuss whether Polish or any other country's claimants are entitled to benefits that have nothing to do with DLA/AA/CA!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Hi all, we too received the back pay into our account. No letter also. The wait certainly has been worth it though. Thanks to all for keeping us in the loop with special thanks to Tony. We've won part one, nows lets begin the campaign for part two. Back pay prior to October 2007. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony .............

Maybe it's just me, but I must admit to being a little confused as to exactly what the state of play is on all this. I've followed the thread from day 1, but there have been quite a few ups and downs, what with appeals, recent successes and so on.

I appreciate entirely that everyone's situation is slightly different, but would it be possible for you to give a 'bullet by bullet' status? Nothing too wordy or lengthy: just simple one-liners.

Thanks in anticipation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Background

HMG taken to ECJ, put on notice of proceedings May 2005, therefore legally should have put all claims in abayence which they failed to do

October 2007, HMG loose at ECJ on DLA, AA and CA but mobility element is excluded

3000 plus people then lodge requests for reinstatement

HMG come up with a new set of criteria and claim that as the law was ok until it wasn't ok, it was ok so therefore still not p[ayable

MHG then loose at 4 major Upper Tribunals but still refuse to reinstate

Massed complaints on compliance to the ECJ and to the Independant Case Examiner - decision by ICE still outstanding, awaiting decision from the 3/4 March Tribunals

ECJ take out infringement proceedings against HMG and eventually the Minister, Jonathan Shaw, changes the HMG tack and they agree that their new rules were rubbish and start to reinstate people, all to be reinstated by the end of September 2010

Across this, 4 test cases (representing over 300 claimants, it later transpired that these were NOT test cases) go to the Lower Tribunal on 3/4 March 2010, parts of which are overwritten by the Minister's decision

BUT, the Judges have to decide what the date of qualification is, HMG say it's October 2007 (ECJ date) but a Higher Tribunal Judge has already said it's the date that the benefit was first awarded, so those people who were disallowed say in October 2005 have not had their benefit backdated to that date, only to October 2007, which is the date HMG is currently using

And the mobility element was referred back to the ECJ as the result of a previous Upper Tribunal decision by Judge Mesher and it's likely that will be won by the claimants.

Think that's about it, 2.5 years of the campaign broken down into a few lines !!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None at all, initially the two Judge's Clerk told me about 3 weeks.  However, since then there have been a large number of supplementary submissions, threats from the DWP to take it to the Higher Tribunal - like, we won't - and from what I remember, the case has been called in by the Chairman of the Judge's panel because of its complexity.

Basically, your guess is as good as anybody's but it's worth remembering that whilst others may benefit from the decision in this case, there are two claimants and their families/carers actively involved in these cases and it's them that are really fighting this on behalf of the rest of us.

Oh, and we still don't know whether these will be lead cases but that's becoming increasingly academic cos if the DWP loose, I think they'll roll over despite all the muscle flexing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...