Terms & Conditions

[NeilC]

Hi. During an accuracy check, we have found a claim where the customer didn’t declare a non-dependant at the property. After checking the c-tax records, he was present on their occupancy screens.

Whose mistake is this? Ours, for not checking another departments records (even if it is a closely linked department) or theirs for not decaring the non-dep on their claim?

In this case the occupancy had no effect on on the C-tax award, as there were already 2 people liable.

Cheers.

[Anonymous]

I’d definately plump for claimant error if it was not declared on the form when applying for HB / CTB. 8)

[Kevin D]

To my mind, there are two ways of looking at this:

1) there is no official error as the Benefits section only requires details of actual liability from the CTAX section in order to determine CTB. It is not the job of the Benefits section to check the work of another section. Or,

2) it is/was an official error not to check, but the clmt’s failure to disclose a material fact on the claim form contributed to the mistake. This line is supported by a recent CD (can’t recall the number offhand) where the Cmmr found an LA to be at fault for not analysing a bank statement for income (contrary to CH/0069), but then found that the clmt’s failure to disclose contributed to the LA’s mistake.

That’s my tuppence.

[Anonymous]

I’d say it is the claimant’s error.

This could be backed up by the House of Lords decision in Hinchy vs Secretary of State for Work and Pensions:

[url]http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd050303/hinch-1.htm[/url]

In this case, the overpayment [i:3f14eadd82]could[/i:3f14eadd82] have been prevented if the DLA and IS office communicated better.

However, the Lords decided it was still the claimant’s error, as she should not have assumed one department would speak to another, and it was still her duty to report any change.

[seanosul]

Hinchy offers a degree of protection to Central Government bodies but not to Local Authorities. All of the Local Government Acts enforce the principle that the LA is an LA as a whole and that you do not have lots of different LAs within the one authority. Some partial exemption for Housing Benefit Services, in that we have designated offices publsihed on the application form. This exmption disappears if your service is Revenues and Benefits and that is the address for communications.

So if the information was delivered to the designated LA Office, you were aware of it.

[seanosul]

Jut to add – whether you could successfully argue that the claimant contributed to the overpayment would prevent it being LA Error.

[NeilC]

Just to add further, information. To be honest I really didn’t think of checking this originally. C-tax were notified in 1993 that there was a 3rd occupant. The claim for benefit was made in 2006. Does this make a difference?

[seanosul]

Err at the point of claim verification and cross checking should you have not checked household size discrepancy?

[NeilC]

We wouldn’t normally check the household occupancy screens for c-tax. We tend to check liability and that the discounts are correct. I suspect that this is the case with a lot of benefit sections.

This is the first time it has come up as an issue here.

[Author]

Posts