Pension contributions rules on backdating
As mentioned above, the parties agreed that one purpose of the legislation was to prevent student carers from accessing dual funding regimes.” Upper Tribunal Judge: Jacobs From 8 April 2013, to be eligible for DLA (and for PIP or AA or Carers Allowance) you must be habitually resident in the Common Travel Area, be present in GB, and have been present in GB for not less than 104 weeks in the last 156 weeks (the ‘past presence test’).
Judge Mitchell then concludes that: “I have decided that the legislator used the term “temporary interruption” to draw a distinction between cases where (a) an interruption in attendance, by its nature, means a person can no longer fairly be considered in fact to be actively pursuing a full-time course of study and (b) other interruptions the nature of which means the person can fairly be said still to pursue a full-time course of study.The University’s letter did not state that a year’s deferral had been agreed but Mrs M’s evidence that it had was not disputed. On 24 September 2013, the Secretary of State refused Mrs M’s claim because she was “in full-time education”.Mrs M unsuccessfully appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Ft T).In determining her subsequent appeal to him, Upper Tribunal Mitchell, sets out the following as the relevant legislation.Section 70(3) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (“1992 Act”) provides that “a person shall not be entitled to [a carer’s allowance] if he is…receiving full-time education”.Regulation 5 of the Social Security (Carer’s Allowance) Regulations 1976 specifies circumstances in which a person shall be treated as receiving full-time education. degree course in occupational therapy at Teesside University.
The regulation also deems a period of full-time education to continue throughout any “temporary interruption” in a student’s attendance at a course of full-time education. On 25 June 2013, an administrator at the University wrote to Mrs M stating “I write to confirm you have been interrupted from your studies as of 21 June 2013” and went on: “You will need to contact me at least 8 weeks prior to your proposed resumption date stating that you still wish to resume your studies.
These other interruptions are temporary interruptions for the purposes of regulation 5.
This interpretation avoids construing regulation 5(3) so that the adjective “temporary” serves no purpose.
Regulation 5(1) of the 1976 Regulations provides that “a person shall be treated as receiving full-time education for any period during which he attends a course of education at a university…for twenty–one hours or more a week”.
Regulation 5(3) is the focal point of this appeal and provides: “In determining the duration of a period of full-time education under paragraph (1) of this regulation, a person who has started on a course of education shall be treated as attending it for the usual number of hours per week throughout any vacation or any temporary interruption of his attendance until the end of the course or such earlier date as he abandons it or is dismissed from it.” In upholding the claimant’s appeal, Judge Mitchell decides that the Ft T erred in law in its interpretation of regulation 5(3) of the 1976 Regulations.
Judge Jacobs holds that: In addition, he finds no evidence any specific reference to the best interests of the child being a primary consideration: “I would be astonished if any policy maker considering any issue in relation to children nowadays would take any other approach – the same may be said for the public-sector equality duty – but evidence there must be.