Case No. UKUT-00433-(IAC)

9. Mr Fouladvand submitted that the appellant had been a worker, a status she had retained pursuant to regulation 6(2) and that she had retained her status whilst in receipt of Job Seekers Allowance (“JSA”) and while undergoing approved training on the three occasions – 11 June 2007 to 14 September 2007, 14 April to 25 July 2008 and 15 March 2009 to 18 May 2009 - as identified in the letter from Jobcentre Plus dated 7 April 2014 . He submitted that she had been a worker when she entered (as a jobseeker), and had not lost that status, and, alternatively that the finding she had not worked was not one open to the First-tier Tribunal. 10. Ms Wise submitted that the appellant had not been a “worker” prior to commencing employment in September 2009. On that basis regulation 6(2) was not engaged and that there was no reason to overturn the findings of fact made by Judge Blum in particular at [23]. She submitted further that the attendance at approved training could not be equated with employment given there was no contract of employment and no evidence of payment of wages and whilst JSA and credits were given, with a slight top-up being offered as an incentive, this did not equate to work and thus somebody attending training could not be seen as “worker”. 11. Ms Wise submitted further that there was adequate evidence for the conclusion that the appellant had no genuine chance of being engaged given the length of time she had taken to find employment and also the fact that she had been required to go on three separate training courses including English for the Speakers of Other Languages (“ESOL”). 12. In reply Mr Fouladvand submitted that even were the appellant not to have been found to be a worker prior to her start of employment in September 2009, she was nonetheless a qualified person as a jobseeker. 13. It was agreed that we would accept further written submissions on the nature of approved in training but we received submissions from the respondent alone.