Reply To: Deprivation of undeclared capital.

#9053
petedavies
Participant

Peter B,

I can see where you are coming from but still do not agree – two scenarios:

1) Claimant retains a (reduced) entitlement to HB. The reduction in the capital is reflected in increased UE. To include it on a second occassion would lead to an element of double counting hence the use of the word treat in the Regs.

2) Claimant loses all entitlement, as in the case in point. The overpayment is caused by the excess capital in the first week only and you make a superseding decision based on either additional tariff income or exceeding the capital limit. I do not think the overpayment is, strictly speaking, caused by the capital after the first week. It is caused because an award has come to an end, albeit because the claimant failed to properly declare capital. The only way a new award can be made is for a claim to be made. Going back to the use of the word treat – I think this demonstrates that the diminution exercise is a purely arithmetical one leaving no space for value judgements.