Terms & Conditions

[seanosul]

The DWP have issued auditors with highly contradictory audit instructions for 2005/06. In previous years where unreferred claims were the exception rather than the rule, the Council could correct the claims up until the audited claim was submitted. However this no longer appears to be the case – or is it?

I have copied the relevant paragraphs below, directly from this years instructions. Would I be right to say that the subsidy order quoted in paragraph 54 overrides the advice it is the date of claim completion that counts (para 55) or the DWP advice on para 56 that it is 31 May?

(oh well – at least the DWP are equally as contradictory to auditors as they are to Councils)

[quote:8980d46ba8]

54. The Order sits uncomfortably with the requirement in the Regulations to refer cases within three working days or as soon as practicable thereafter because, provided a referral is made by the time the authority certified claim is submitted, full rate subsidy is payable regardless of any unreasonable delay making the referral or the fact that had a determination been secured in a timely way, less benefit and/or subsidy may have been payable. The department has stated that other controls provide assurance that rent officer referrals are made and made on time and that, for subsidy purposes, greater emphasis is to be placed on an authority having made a referral than on it receiving and processing a rent officer determination.

55. DWP accepts that the treatment of rent officer referral cases for subsidy purposes is complicated and the analysis of expenditure required by the form provides a limited audit trail.

Auditors are expected to agree the cells entries to subsidy reports and to test a sample of cases to ensure these have been analysed as required by the form in accordance with paragraphs 56 and 57 below, drawing any uncertainty or disagreement with the authority to DWP’s attention in a qualification letter. For the avoidance of doubt, auditors are expected to confirm the position at the date an authority completes it claim. Auditors are not expected, either this year or next, to revisit cases to confirm that determinations were subsequently received and actioned.

56. DWP has agreed the following approach:

(a) auditors do not need to be concerned that a referral was made in a timely way in accordance with the Regulations. For the avoidance of doubt, this means, for example, that claims received in April 2005 or cases where the previous determination was 52 weeks or more old in April 2005, can be included for full rate subsidy provided a referral to the rent officer is made by 31 May 2006. Clearly DWP hopes that such cases will be exceptional and that referrals will be being made on a timely basis but for subsidy purposes only 31 May 2006 is critical;

[/quote:8980d46ba8]

[chris harvey]

We had something from Michael Mina at the DWP a few months ago confirming a relaxation of the rules for subsidy and Rent Officer referrals. Basically providing a referral is made by the deadline for submission of the certified claim then no subsidy would be lost. As most people are probably aware the deadline for claim submission is 31/5/06 so providing a referral is made by this date no subsidy is lost.

[seanosul]

Do you have a copy of that email to hand? The certified claim is submitted by 31 December.

[keith j]

Sorry to drift off the subject but has anyone got an e/mailable copy of the Audit instructions I can peruse please? I haven’t received mine from our Auditors yet. 😥

[seanosul]

I have an electronic copy. I have sent you a pm

[chris harvey]

I think we are getting confused with terminology. I had thought of the certified claim as the one we sent in at the end of May because it had to be certified by the responsible finance officer, but i can see now that this is the pre certified claim and the one the auditors sign off at the end of December is the certified one. In the light of this the term “certified claim” used in para 54 of the DWP response must be an error, it should say “pre certified claim” as I am convinced it refers to the end of May claim.
The reason I am convinced is because I have information from 3 different sources that give us guidance on rent officer referrals and dates for subsidy purposes. First we have the draft version of the subsidy claim issued on 18th November 2005 which states in the guidance for cell 57 (cases not referred to the Rent Officer) enter total expenditure on cases which do not have a current R/O determination and the authority has not made a referral by 31st May 2006. This advice is repeated in the final version of the subsidy claim issued on 17th March 2006.
Secondly we have the subsidy guidance manual for 2005/6 which reads “If an authority fails to make an application for a Rent Officer determination in respect of a case that falls within the scope of the arrangements, within the relevant year or before the due date for the submission of the subsidy claim for the relevant year, any HB awarded will not qualify for subsidy”. In my opinion the due date for submission of the subsidy claim is 31st May 2006.
Thirdly we have a letter issued by Michael Mina at DWP to all authorities on 3rd January 2006. This letter clarifies a number of queries raised by LA’s following the 18th November 2005 draft subsidy claim. I will just print here a few relevant bits that relate to the topic in this posting “….the deadline date for referrals to the Rent Officer is the same as the deadline for submission of the form itself to the Department, ie 31st May 2006…” The letter also clarified that for cases referred by that date but the R/O determination had not been received back, then 2005/6 expenditure should be included in cell 58 (IRL expenditure) and receive full subsidy.
Sorry but none of these came by email, the subsidy claims and letter were hard copies and the Subsidy Guidance Manual is on the DWP website.

[seanosul]

I am not convinced that the DWP would make such a mistake about the certified claim. Every other cell can be corrected, either by the authority or by auditors as part of the certification process. Why not cell 057?

Also the instruction to leave the claims as IRLs would not apply to old scheme cases.

[Author]

Posts