Reply To: Notional income used for past period

#114468
Chris Robbins
Participant

I think your current practice is to be preferred.

You need to understand the terminology. What do you mean by a ‘limited period cancellation’? Are you making a superseding decision to terminate the award, or are you drawing an inference that for that period income was such as to give no entitlement to benefit? You find out (now) that a claimant had a relevant cghange of circumstances for a past period, but there is nothing to indicate that the award currently in payment bneeds to be disturbed.

In order to determine what you should do about that past period you write and ask for details of his circumstances. No reply.

So, a month later that leaves you with a need to make a superseding decision but no info on which to do so.

Your two alternatives are;

1. A closed period supersession based on an inference that his income was at such a level as to give no entitlement to benefit. That really is what the default 999.99 on the system is for.

2. You decide that you should terminate the award. (This is if you don’t believe in the legality of closed period supersessions). But you can only do that from the date you make the decision. All benefit awarded from the date of change to the date of decision is an O/P but is subject to Reg 104 (underlying entitlement). So you action in the same way as the above option by using a default income figure for the period of no JSA but underlying entitlement offsets the O/P in full from the date JSA was reawarded. The only practical difference is that option 2 will now require a new claim.