Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
  • #38163

    I wondered if someone would give me some advice on the following scenario. HB was in payment, and following an investigation it was deemed that the claimant was not resident at his property so decision revised on 16/08/10, overpayment created, and an appeal followed. The response was sent to The Tribunals Service and it has taken months to list the appeal, though it will be heard in the next few weeks. In the meantime, on 04/02/11 the claimant puts in another claim in respect of the same address which was subsequently rejected because again following further enquiries, it was considered the claimant not to be resident so a fresh decision was made not allowaing the claim and now a reconsideraton request has been received. Should the second decision have waited until the appeal against the orignal decision was heard, or should we now follow the normal procedures in dealing with the new reconsideration? Many thanks

    Chris Robbins

    What you have done is correct. When you revised your decision in 2010 you were satisfied he was not resident. When he claimed in 2011 he was declaring on the A/f that he lived there as at the date of claim. You have found he wasn’t and refused the claim accordingly. Because it is a different period he has the same right to request a reconsideration/appeal as he did back in 2010.
    What you could not do was to refuse to make a decision on the 2011 claim because you had found him not resident the previous year. That would be like arguing that because he was not resident at some point he could never be resident in the future.


    What you could try to do is to provide the new claim and decision as “additional info” and try to get the Tribunal to deal with all of it together. If the same issues are involved, they might agree to do so. It is a bit cheeky I suppose but hearings are taking so long nowadays that its worth a try.

    My other thought was about whether you had the power to revise your first decision. This can be a minefield if the investigation was much later i.e. if a claimant was visited in May 2011 and found not to be resident, it does not mean they were not resident in November 2010. Of course if the property does not exist ….(I am reminded of the claims from an address that turned out to be a cementry).

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.