Child Benefit and interventions.

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
  • #22007

    I know I’ve seen something on this before but a search has proved fruitless.

    An intervention has brought up the following scenario;

    Children spending 4 nights a week with customers from April (not previously declared on claim).
    Customers start receiving CBen in April (also not declared).

    The income needs to be added from April, but the debate is whether the children (and thereby the additional premiums) should apply from April as well

    Any thoughts ?


    You need to add the increased income in from April (disadvantageous change) and calculate the gross overpayment. You enter the children from the Monday following date you were notified of their presence in the household (advantageous change), and pay the increased HB/CTB from that date. Then you do an underlying entitlement calculation for the period of the overpayment, pretending that you knew about the kids all along. This will eliminate your overpayment and leave you with some ‘excess’ underlying entitlement, which of course you do not pay to the claimant.


    Thanks Andy,

    haven’t assessed for 2 yrs but not sure that’s enough of an excuse for forgetting UE…




    There is another possibility.

    Sounds like this is a “standard” LA means-tested case – not IS or JSA-ib (otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion, right?).

    I therefore assume that a decision was made in April this year incorporating the new applicable amounts. Depending on exactly when the children and attendant income joined the household, it could be that the April uprating decision was made in ignorance of the material facts that the children and the Child Benefit were there. If so, what you have here are new facts that would lead to an advantageous revision of the April decision had they come to light within a month; but they didn’t so it is no longer possible to revise that decision after all. Instead, you must make a superseding decision from the time when the information came to light.

    What chuffing difference does that make from what Andy told you, you might ask? The answer is, the claimant gets the increased ongoing benefit one week earlier, because the supersession is done under Reg 7(2)(b)(i), rather than Reg 7(2)(a), so the effective date is governed by Reg 8(4)(a) and runs from the start of the week in which the missing facts were discovered.

    If there has been an even more recent decision than the April uprating, then the above applies to that decision rather than the April one, unless it was so recent that you are still within the month allowed for revision.


    If their rent was previously restricted on size criteria, don’t forget to also re-refer the rent…

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.