To my mind there are two options:
1) if you accept that an earlier claim was in fact made, but was mislaid by the LA, then it would be quite legitimate to assess that claim. That would render backdating irrelevant.
2) If you’re satisfied that no earlier claim was made, then the crux is simply whether or not she has continous good cause. That is going to depend on what actions the clmt took and what knowledge she had and / or could have obtained. The test for actions is that of “reasonableness” in terms of what could be expected of the clmt; not whether the actions were “understandable”.
Based strictly on the info given about the info given to the clmt and taking into account that she has claimed before, my view would lean towards backdate refusal on the grounds that continous good cause has not been shown for her failure to claim earlier. It is clear the advice given to the clmt was to contact the Benefits section AND that it was her responsibility. So, unless there was some other reason for the delay……
Correspondence from a 3rd party (whoever they are) would make no difference to my decision, other than to the extent of taking into account any further relevant evidence / information that may be provided.
As an aside, given the general lottery status of backdates at Tribunals, I wouldn’t be inclined to attend the hearing.
.
