Post by Patrick Torsney on Dec 7, 2010 14:22:11 GMT 1
Mrs K and her 4 children have Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK and she came to us (Bolton CAB) initially with benefit issues as her Employment Support Allowance (ESA) had been refused. The Department of Work and Pension used the provisions of Regulation 19 of the Employment Support Allowance regulations 2008 to terminate her claim.
She was also approx 8 months pregnant.
Mr K came to the UK to live with his family and he did not have his decision on his asylum claim, so he personally had no recourse to public funds.
We were able to advise Mrs K on appealing the ESA and this meant that her benefit would go back into payment for the duration of the appeal.
The only income the family had for the children was Child Benefit as they had not had a decision from Child Tax Credits with regards to their entitlement. There were complex issues with the Tax Credit claim resulting in the case going to the appeals section, and we know from experience that this can take several months to resolve and despite liaising persistently with the Tax Credit Office we were unable to reach a positive outcome prior to appeal.
As a result Mr and Mrs K had only Child Benefit income and single person ESA to live on for the foreseeable future for themselves and their 4 children, thus living way below what is perceived as the poverty line.
We were able to advise them on their potential entitlement under S.17 of the 1989 Childrens Act and Social Services legislation generally. Taking this into consideration, the family were signposted to social services via the community care team for emergency assistance as without this the family would go hungry, be unable to pay bills etc and potentially have ended up homeless. There was also a real risk of the children being taken into care had these actions not been taken.
In addition, the family had large mounting household bills as they were unable to meet the costs due their minimal income and so were also given assistance from the legal aid funded Debt specialist to hold off the agencies pursuing payments until their full entitlement to benefits were in payment and backdated.
The Debt specialist was able to advise and negotiate with creditors. It appears some creditors had attempted to ignore the provisions of the 1974 Consumer Credit Act in their dealing with the client. Without the combination of assistance they received Mr and Mrs K and their family would not have managed to keep their energy supplies at the property, keep their property at all and feed and clothe their children.
Without the legally aided help, it would have been one more family on the streets or, two more adults one of whom was pregnant, and four more kids in care
She was also approx 8 months pregnant.
Mr K came to the UK to live with his family and he did not have his decision on his asylum claim, so he personally had no recourse to public funds.
We were able to advise Mrs K on appealing the ESA and this meant that her benefit would go back into payment for the duration of the appeal.
The only income the family had for the children was Child Benefit as they had not had a decision from Child Tax Credits with regards to their entitlement. There were complex issues with the Tax Credit claim resulting in the case going to the appeals section, and we know from experience that this can take several months to resolve and despite liaising persistently with the Tax Credit Office we were unable to reach a positive outcome prior to appeal.
As a result Mr and Mrs K had only Child Benefit income and single person ESA to live on for the foreseeable future for themselves and their 4 children, thus living way below what is perceived as the poverty line.
We were able to advise them on their potential entitlement under S.17 of the 1989 Childrens Act and Social Services legislation generally. Taking this into consideration, the family were signposted to social services via the community care team for emergency assistance as without this the family would go hungry, be unable to pay bills etc and potentially have ended up homeless. There was also a real risk of the children being taken into care had these actions not been taken.
In addition, the family had large mounting household bills as they were unable to meet the costs due their minimal income and so were also given assistance from the legal aid funded Debt specialist to hold off the agencies pursuing payments until their full entitlement to benefits were in payment and backdated.
The Debt specialist was able to advise and negotiate with creditors. It appears some creditors had attempted to ignore the provisions of the 1974 Consumer Credit Act in their dealing with the client. Without the combination of assistance they received Mr and Mrs K and their family would not have managed to keep their energy supplies at the property, keep their property at all and feed and clothe their children.
Without the legally aided help, it would have been one more family on the streets or, two more adults one of whom was pregnant, and four more kids in care