CH_530_2006 anyone?

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #39105
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I am looking for a transcript of this case, which does not appear in any of the usual places. I gather it has something to do with a Council being aware in advance that a claimant’s circumstances may well change on a future date, and neither the claimant nor the Council does anything when that date comes around. It’s about whose fault any overpayment is. I am aware of R_H 2/04 and CH/687/2006 on a similar theme, but the one I cannot find may well offer a different perspective and I am trying to be as honest and transparent as I can in this sub.

    Thanks in advance if anyone has it.

    #110869
    Kevin D
    Participant

    I don’t have it either Peter.

    Another recent UTD may be of interest – CH/813/2010 (neutral citation not known). CH/687/2006 was cited and the principles followed. One point of note by Judge Rowley was that LA’s with good systems should not be penalised by comparison with LAs that had poor systems (e.g. one LA uses diary notes; another doesn’t).

    #110870
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Well, if you haven’t got it I suspect it’s going to prove rather elusive!

    #110895
    Junep
    Participant

    Hello Peter

    I don’t know whether the following link is of any use or is relevant..If not, apologies

    http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/HB_Overpay_Official%20_Err_07_07.pdf

    kind regards
    June
    🙂

    #110908
    Anonymous
    Guest

    That is helpful yes: it seems that 687/06 and 530/06 are in direct conflict with one another so I had better get onto the UT for a copy of 530/06 to see for myself.

    That is generally a very useful paper – it is impartial and contains references to a couple of cases I had not previously seen. Thanks very much!

    #110911
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Thanks to DWP via HBINFO, I now have a copy. I assume Ghita will add it to the library on here.

    #110917
    d-stainsby
    Participant

    I was just about to post and offer to send a copy because I represented in both CH/687/2006 and CH/530/2006.

    I applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal in CH/687/2006 but was refused by the Commissioner. I did not take it any further

    Both decisions carry equal weight, but any conflict may well be more apparent than real. CH/687/2006 involved the claimants partners incapacity benefit and the change from short term high rate to long term IB. The claimant was already enttiled to the disability premium so her applicable amount did not change. CH/530/2006 involved a change in working tax credit that was obviously predictable (indeed as I recall it was set out in the working tax credit decision notice that was submitted as supporting evidence with the claimants HB/CTB claim)

    WTC was overpaid because HMRC failed to inform the claimants employer that he should stop making payments, but HMRC remitted the overpaiyment and so Mr Deputy Commissioner Mark held that those payments were income to be taken into account.

    I argued that the resulting overpaid HB was in consenquence of an official error by HMRC and that was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner.

    #110934
    Kevin D
    Participant

    Having read CH/530/2006, I can see why even Derek isn’t arguing strongly that the decision is particulary contradictory to CH/687/2006. In my view, there are several distinguishing features not least of which are subsequent changes in the law relating to the abolition of benefit periods and the method of calculating Tax Credits as income. Given that the principles considered in CH/687/2006 have been expressly followed in several subsequent decisions, including CH/813/2010, I’m not sure that CH/530/2006 offers much assistance in the overall context of future predictable changes.

    One issue CH/530 adds to is the matter of whether overpaid income should be taken into account. If I’m reading it correctly, the CD seems to be consistent with other authorities to the extent that overpaid income is taken into account if it is not being recovered. If recovery is being sought, it’s not income (notwithstanding the unique position of tax credits and the potential arguments relating to CH/1450/2005 v CH/0653/2009).

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.