Terms & Conditions

[allan]

Some help please…..

We had a claim that was being calculated using the claimants Income Support payments and passported to full HB and CTB.

In February this year we received notification from DWP that Income Support had been cancelled back to July of the previous year because the claimant had failed to disclose the fact that her children had left her care. When we received this notification we decided to cancel her claim and create an overpayment from July, although this should have been suspended. The lady then sent in a form asking for us to backdate her claim, although it was not a backdate as we had to net down the overpayment in any case. She said on her form that she did not know that her Income Support had stopped in July, not surprisingly as it did not get stopped until February the following year.

From this information we decided to assess the claimants underlying entitlement using nil income for the period July 05 to February 06 then from February using JSA per other evidence we received. We assumed a nil income to calcualte the claim as it was obvious that the claimant would have been living off the Income Support she was not technically entitled to.

The auditor has advised us that there is not sufficient evidence to back this decision up, can anyone comment on how they would have dealt with this.

Many thanks in advance.

[Anonymous]

I would’ve requested bank statements and got the claimant to complete a form confirming they had nil other income over the period. Although it is likely the claimant will have difficulty providing all info I would still ask for it. 😕

[andyrichards]

Did your auditor have any suggestions as to what would have been sufficient evidence?

[allan]

He did hint towards us getting a statement from the claimant to say no other income, however we had judged the statement saying “was not aware Income Support had stopped” as a statement to say had no other income.

[Kevin D]

Effectively, the arguments have to be “clmt friendly”. So, these may (or may not) help:

1) [b:d27a718566]s.130(1)(c)(i) of the SSCBA 1992[/b:d27a718566] clearly envisages that a “nil income” claim can be entertained.

2) [b:d27a718566]HBR 86[/b:d27a718566] only requires LAs to require such [b:d27a718566]”…certificates, documents, [u:d27a718566]information[/u:d27a718566] and evidence…[/b:d27a718566]” that are reasonably needed in order to make a decision.

It doesn’t appear your auditor is quibbling about the concept of a nil income claim. But, I think you could strongly argue that the “information” is sufficient to make a decision. After all, you were able to make one. If that is so, the [b:d27a718566]LAW[/b:d27a718566] is satisfied.

In anticipation of the auditor then moving on to “VF” (or whatever its current pointless incarnation is), there are at least three CDs where it was expressly found that VF had no legal status – it was nothing more than an administrative arrangement between the DWP and LAs. See:

[b:d27a718566]CH/0999/2002 (para 1)
CH/2323/2002 (para 1.3)
CH/5088/2002 (paras 10-14)[/b:d27a718566]

No matter how hard the DWP, or BFI et al try to “enforce” new standards of evidence, all that ultimately matters is the law. Until such time as the DWP amend the law, any guidance / VF etc is, legally, dead in the water.

Hope the above helps.

[Anonymous]

I think you did have adequate evidence in this case. The DWP had told you that the issue was not means-test related, it was simp,y that she did not satisfy the threshold conditions for IS and should have been signing on for JSA instead. There is further evidence of this in the fact she started to get JSA from the time when the issue came to light. There have been no children’s allowances in IS since 2003, and while the transfer to CTC was phased for existing IS claimants I do think you had enough information to assume that the claimant did not possess income in excess of the applicable amount at any time.

In HB, this is a technical matter with no material effect on entitlement. I’d say the claimant has not been overpaid and the evidence is sufficient to show that.

[allan]

Many thanks for all the advice.

[Carol Meredith]

Allan, I had a case recently which was more or less identical to yours except that it went back even further. A gross overpayment was raised, she appealed and we did exactly as you have done, on exactly the same basis as you did, thereby clearing the overpayment.
Carol

[Abigail_Harvey]

HI there, I have a query about nil income claims. I have a claimant that has made a claim for HB stating that he has no income and is not going to sign on for JSA but will live off money from his mother until he finds work (she has confirmed this and also that she will make up the shortfall in his rent). Our policy team apparently advised the assessor on the last claim that we could only pay on this basis for up to 6 weeks but is this legal? Can we impose a time limit on such claims?

[Abigail_Harvey]

He has no bank account to provide statements and his HB has always been paid into his Mother’s account. My other issue is that the LL is his Mother’s boyfriend so I am unsure if this is really a commercial arrangement but my problem is that we have paid it in the past.

[Anonymous]

It’s definitely not commercial. What other LL (or partner of LL) subs their tenant? If she is making the shortfall up they’re effectively not charging rent are they? Nothing to say you can’t make a different decision now (but you can’t go back and revise previous ones)

[Abigail_Harvey]

Thanks, that’s my feeling about it too.

[Author]

Posts