Terms & Conditions

[petedavies]

Comms have decided that there should be an entitlement from March 2007. This should read March 2002 and is clearly a slip.

Claimant is a L.A. tenant and there is an adjourned (rent arrears amongst other things) in County Court tomorrow.

I do not think we can make an award until the decision has been corrected and signed off by the Commissioner (even though it is obviously an error).

Thoughts anyone?

[Anonymous]

Reg 30 SS Commissioners (Procedure) Regs 1999 provides for the correction of accidental errors. You should write to the Commissioners’ ofrfice to request the correction.

[Anonymous]

Reg 30 SS Commissioners (Procedure) Regs 1999 provides for the correction of accidental errors. You should write to the Commissioners’ ofrfice to request the correction.

[petedavies]

Thanks for that but it is the effect of acting before I receive the ammendment I am concerned about.

If a decision/award was made prior to the decision being corrected would this be the same legal effect as making an award where there was no claim?

[Anonymous]

Pete can you give the Comms reference please

[Andy Thurman]

If the error is as clear as stated, surely a representation from you to this effect would satisfy the Housing dept/judge – I’ve had to tell Hsg sections that their “Nightmare tenant” won’t be getting evicted for rent arrears after all! – the case can then proceed on any other matters.

[APT]

[quote:539002ff15=”petedavies”]Thanks for that but it is the effect of acting before I receive the ammendment I am concerned about.

If a decision/award was made prior to the decision being corrected would this be the same legal effect as making an award where there was no claim?[/quote:539002ff15]

Could you not make a payment on account until the decision is amended?

[petedavies]

David: I’m not really comfortable making “live” cases readily identifiable but am happy to PM you the “offending” paragraphs.

APT: Must admit didn’t think of that, hence my failure to mention it on the original post but its a nonstarter anyway – The decision of no entitlement was a supersession. Even if it were not I’m not convinced you could make a PoA since a decision would have been made on the claim.

[APT]

[quote:e9902732ba=”petedavies”]
APT: Must admit didn’t think of that, hence my failure to mention it on the original post but its a nonstarter anyway – The decision of no entitlement was a supersession. Even if it were not I’m not convinced you could make a PoA since a decision would have been made on the claim.[/quote:e9902732ba]

To be honest I hadn’t thought too much about it, just threw that suggestion into the mix.

As this was following a supersession then you are right that a PoA is not applicable for this case.

And another thought has just struck me as why it would not be applicable (even taking into account your last point). PoAs are used where it is impracticable to make a decision. There has been a decision made, the one made by the Tribunal.

[petedavies]

The possession has been adjourned so there is no longer a problem. The whole question does, however, throw up a bit of a conundrum, the nightmare scenario is:

Make decision and award – comms then correct the error. Claimant then contacts L.A. saying “Can I have my HB now? Thank you for that other payment but it was not a payment of HB since there was neither a claim nor a decision on which to base it on. I did not realise this until I received the revised comms decision and used it to pay off my rent arrears. See you in County Court if you want your money back!”

I know that the the correction of an accidental error has effect as if it was the original decision but would this have a trickle down effect on the HB decision without any specific statutory provision?

[Author]

Posts