Reply To: Direct payments

#94570
Julian Hobson
Participant

Just considering this here.

I’ve reread 94 and it is only 94(1) that is subject to 95 to 97 and it needs to be because it says payment will be made to the claimant. 94(3) isn’t subject to anything and allows the authority to use its discretion through use of the word MAY.

For as long as 95 to 97 existed in the old form, they were more than sufficient to mean that 94(3) didn’t need to be used.

I really do think that 94(3) could be used under LHA to make a payment to a L/L but given the discretionary nature presumably you would want to know why the arrangement was requested and if it was to circumvent the new restriction then you wouldn’t agree to the request (or would you ?).