Terms & Conditions

[mattk]

Circular A19/10 has just been sent out and the amendments to ‘treatment of backdated claims’ has been raised as an issue, in that do the amendments under SI 2010/2449 (not SI 2011/2449 as state on the circular), really demonstrate that backdated claims can constitute 1 or 2 claims (alongside the main claim) and hence potentially lead to 2 different LHA rates (example 2 – para 14)??

[Anonymous]

I’m sure this was mentioned on hbinfo years ago. I’ve not seen the circular but it makes sense to me. Claim 1 is a normal, non-backdated claim and the LHA rate is set by the date of claim. A subsequent backdating request is treated as a separate claim for a fixed period and the LHA rate for that period would be set by the deemed date of claim. It actually makes processing a lot easier – you would no longer need to ammend the current LHA rate due to a successful backdating request.

[mattk]

The issue with A19/10 it seems to be an either, or, in that if the backdated period is up to the day before the main claim, it is one claim, but if for any reason that the period of agreed backdating is not up to and including the day before the main claim, it is 2 claims??

I can send you a copy if you like?

[Anonymous]

No thanks, I can wait 8)

From what you’ve said the DWP’s advice appears to be flawed. This is just another version of the “break in claim” requirement isn’t it? A backdating request [u:bb895c2ec9]is[/u:bb895c2ec9] a claim. If you get a claim you are required to make a decision on it. The LHA rate is set by the date of claim. You do not *have* to treat the backdating request as a revision of the previous claim – in fact it is arguable that this should only be done when it is to the claimant’s advantage. See these threads, among others:

http://hbinfo.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17945
http://hbinfo.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14386

[mattk]

For info the amendmenst to HBR 83(12) as below;

(4) In regulation 83 (time and manner in which claims are to be made) for paragraph (12)(2) substitute—

“(12) Where a claimant (“C”)—

(a)makes a claim which includes (or which C subsequently requests should include) a period before the claim is made; and
(b)from a day in that period, up to the date when C made the claim (or subsequently requested that the claim should include a past period), C had continuous good cause for failing to make a claim (or request that the claim should include that period),
the claim is to be treated as made on the date determined in accordance with paragraph (12A).

(12A) That date is the latest of—

(a)the first day from which C had continuous good cause;
(b)the day 6 months before the date the claim was made;
(c)the day 6 months before the date when C requested that the claim should include a past period.”.

[Anonymous]

Ah… I didn’t realise that they were making these changes.

So previously: Backdating requests subsequent to a claim *can* be treated as separate claims and therefore be determined using different LHA rates (if this was not the case there would be no need for these ammendments).

Now: Backdating requests subsequent to a claim *must* be treated as ammendments to that claim (despite the fact that the claim ceased to exist after it was determined) and the same LHA rate should be used… unless:

a break in entitlement means that the backdated period and current award are not continuous, in which case they are separate claims with potentitally different LHA rates.

I think I understand that correctly. Only… what’s the point? 🙄

[Kevin D]

[quote:693407489f=”mwigg1″] Only… what’s the point? :roll:[/quote:693407489f]
None. *helpfully*

[Anonymous]

From the explanatory memoramdum:
[quote:b7abb35780][b:b7abb35780]Clarifying that two claims are not created when a working age claimant submits a backdating request with a claim for HB/CTB[/b:b7abb35780]
7.14 Working age claimants applying for HB/CTB may submit a written request for benefit for a backdated period. The regulations are not explicit as to whether the claim for backdated benefit is separate from or part of any ongoing claim, and are open to local authorities to interpret in different ways. Clarification is thus needed to promote a consistent application of the rules.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2449/pdfs/uksiem_20102449_en.pdf%5B/quote:b7abb35780%5D
Consistency across Buroughs (and within them) is good, I guess, but why wouldn’t they go for the method that is easier to administer (involving no retrospective LHA adjustments) and fairer to the customer (you can have an extra 6 weeks HB, but your benefit for the next 10 months has reduced!). 😕

[mattk]

Doesn’t the following within the new HBR 83 (12) “C had continuous good cause for failing to make a claim (or request that the claim should include that period)” still mean that good cause has to be shown for the entire period regardless of what previous period the claimant has applied for?

I seem to be losing the plot on this one…..

[Anonymous]

Yep – good cause has to be shown up to the date of the request for backdating.
[quote:1a7543b9aa](12A) That date is the [b:1a7543b9aa]latest[/b:1a7543b9aa] of—
(a)the first day from which C had continuous good cause;
(b)the day 6 months before the date the claim was made;
(c)the day 6 months before the date when C requested that the claim should include a past period.[/quote:1a7543b9aa]

Nothing has really changed with the mechanics of backdating.

[mattk]

So…..in example 2 (below – A19 para 14) is this actually saying that although the claim/request for backdating either on 1st September 2010 (or later), that they had continuous good cause from 1st May until 1st September 2010 (or later), but only wanted to claim or were entitled from 1st May to 31st July, and this is what makes it 2 claims?

[quote:2b1ab4dd40][b:2b1ab4dd40]Example 2[/b:2b1ab4dd40]
HB claim made on 1 September 2010.
Backdating also requested for period 1 May to 31 July, and good cause shown.
The LHA rate for May is applied to the backdated claim.
The LHA rate for September is applied to the current claim.[/quote:2b1ab4dd40]

[Anonymous]

It has just occured to me – the new wording does seem to place extra pressure on the claimant to show that they had good cause for the delay in actually requesting backdating.

[quote:acae09894a]C had continuous good cause for failing to make a claim (or request that the claim should include that period)[/quote:acae09894a]
So “C” could show good cause up to the date of the claim, but if he can’t explain why he did not request backdating on his actual claim form and only asked for it a week or so later, he may lose out. 😥

[Anonymous]

[quote:107ff1b590]So…..in example 2 (below – A19 para 14) is this actually saying that although the claim/request for backdating either on 1st September 2010 (or later), that they had continuous good cause from 1st May until 1st September 2010 (or later), but only wanted to claim or were entitled from 1st May to 31st July, and this is what makes it 2 claims? [/quote:107ff1b590]
That example only really makes sense if you insert the word “immediately” in para 14(a):

[quote:107ff1b590](14) Where a claimant (“C”)—
(a)makes a claim which includes (or which C subsequently requests should include) a period [b:107ff1b590][immediately?][/b:107ff1b590] before the claim is made; and
(b)from a day in that period, up to the date when C made the claim (or subsequently requested that the claim should include a past period), C had continuous good cause for failing to make a claim (or request that the claim should include that period),
the claim is to be treated as made on the date determined in accordance with paragraph (14A).[/quote:107ff1b590]
Otherwise the ammended para 14 seems to say that the May LHA rate should be applied for both periods in that example.

In practise though, not many backdating requests will specifically exclude the period immediately before the date of the claim. It might be better to deal with these as closed period supersessions, ie

HB claim made on 1 September 2010.
Backdating also requested from 1 May 2010 and good cause shown, but due to claimant’s circumstances there is no entitlement for the month of August.
The LHA rate for May is applied to both periods. 8)

[Ozzie Bird]

I’m a little bit confused. Does this change to the regs mean that even if the claimant did not have continuous good cause for the entire period of the backdated request, i.e. from May to September, we can still pay if, during those months, there was some period of good cause, e.g. May to July. By treating the backdated claim and the current claim as 2 separate claims, it doesn’t have to be a continuous period of good cause up to the date of the current claim ie. September.

We always worked on the lines that, when looking at good cause, if for example, they requested backdating from May to September and only had good cause from June to September then that would be continous and ok to pay. However, if they didn’t have good cause during August it could not be considered continous and we wouldn’t make any backdated payment.

From the DWP example 2 that appears to have changed. Can anyone confirm whether or not I’m reading that correctly?

[Anonymous]

No, they still need good cause right up to the date of the claim or backdating request. The example given is where the claimant either does not want HB for August or would not be entitled to HB for that month, but he would still need to show good cause throughout.

[Author]

Posts