Reply To: Amendment 9 – Oh what fun!


I’m with you on this one Mark. Amendment 9 throws up even more anomolies:

Using the method described in case study B, we are asked to take a WTC income of £71.84 wef 28/4/03 (Monday following 22/4/03). Now, assuming this award lasts until 5/4/04 and a new award is then made immediately from the 6/4/04, the HB/CTB claim would be amended to include the new figure from 12/4/04. This would mean we have used £71.84 for a period of 50 weeks (28/4/03-11/4/04) which suggests the customer received WTC of £3592 even though their actual award was only£3569.26 – and thats without including the “capital” of £79.76! What happened to only taking into account the income actually received?

My second point, and I’ve banged on about this on previous posts, is the date of change for HB/CTB purposes. S3 suggested that, where a customer is paid four weekly, we have to differentiate between “in arrears” and “of arrears” by tracking back four weeks from the date of payment. The date of change was then the start of that particular payment cycle. (I have had this confirmed by e-mail by the DWP as well). However, amendment 9 now indicates that the amendment date is simply the Monday following the date of notification. I’m more than willing to go along with this as it is much simpler but are we sure its correct? If we do it this way, there will no longer be any Departmental Error overpayment as my understanding was that this only occurred for the period spanning “date of change” to “date of Tax Credit notification” (Again, S3, Annex B, case study 2).

Final point, none of this matches the instructions given for actioning the recently received proformas. Given that we did not know payment dates, notification dates, etc. , these claims have been amended in a totally different way.

I think I’ll take up an easier career like brain surgery or particle physics…..:15: