Terms & Conditions

[jane]

I know of a Commissioner’s decision that says an overpayment is not ‘LA error’ if the LA failed to act upon a change in circumstances straight away and that 14 days is a reasonable amount of time.

Can anyone remember which case it is?

Thanks

[Anonymous]

Try CH/2471/2003

Cheers!

[jane]

That’s the one I was thinking of – thanks a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anyone got a link to this decision? I can’t seem to trace it!

[Kevin D]

[b:0e7e545743]CH/2741/200[u:0e7e545743]3[/u:0e7e545743][/b:0e7e545743] (p14)
new.hbinfo.org.com/comdecs/ch_2741_2003.doc

Also see:

CH/3629/2002 (p8 )
CH/0454/2005 (p10)

There is another CD that follows the above, but my list isn’t up to date so can’t currently identify it.

Regards

[Anonymous]

Just completely out of interest, if the Commissioner is saying that 2 weeks does not constitute official error (although not going so far as saying what length of delay DOES constitute official error), are any LA’s using this to minimise the value of their official error overpayments?

Has anyone run this past any of the software houses – Academy classes any pymt made after the date we are notified of a change as official error which, as much as I dislike, could never dispute. Should we be asking for a two week grace period before an overpayment becomes official error?

Just wondered…… 🙄

[Kevin D]

AntsD:

These earlier threads may be of interest:

new.hbinfo.org.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2749
new.hbinfo.org.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3034
new.hbinfo.org.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4593
new.hbinfo.org.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5178
new.hbinfo.org.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5526

Others which are kind of related to the issue are:

new.hbinfo.org.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3907
new.hbinfo.org.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4175
new.hbinfo.org.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4943
new.hbinfo.org.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5951
new.hbinfo.org.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6673
new.hbinfo.org.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7548

Happy reading…… 🙄

[Simo]

absolutely not. I think the commissioners are really looking from the recoverability side of things do they have any authority on subsidy ?

Anyway it’s not in my authorities interests to reclassify from LA to CL error as we’re well under threshold for 100% on LA error.

[Nicky]

That’s correct – subsidy rules still apply and any delay results in official error.

The commissioner’s are only looking at delay in the context of classifying an overpayment as LA error for recovery purposes only and are perhaps a little more understanding than DWP when it comes to the practicalities of administering changes.

Did I just type that out loud………….

[Anonymous]

Can’t say I agree with this.

The overpayment in this case occurred due to a delay in terminating the claim. Historically, I would have said this was cut and dried official error as per reg 99(2) and so “official error” subsidy rules apply. The Commissioner is saying that the delay was so small that he did not consider it to be “official error”. This is quite a ground breaking thing to say as it infers some kind of reasonable span of time being allowed in which to action a change in circs which has always been denied by the DWP. In effect, the Commissioner is saying that reg 99(2) doesn’t apply in this case. Therefore, why would you still classify it as “official error” for subsidy when the definition is one and the same? ❓

[Kevin D]

Simo & Nicky:

One of the earlier threads is this:

new.hbinfo.org.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5526

Following that, to date, no one has been able to show me any [u:91b7f6c317]legal[/u:91b7f6c317] basis for treating “delay” periods differently for subsidy. Sure, reference to manuals, circulars and “rules” aplenty; but no law.

There doesn’t appear to be any (legal) reason why the Commissioner’s decisions should not apply equally to delays for subsidy as well as for recoverability. Just needs someone to take on the DWP…. 😈

Regards

[Nicky]

This was discussed at the recent OP day with Paul Stagg and Peter Barker in London and while it was agreed that there is absolutely no difference in the legal definition of an official error for subsidy and recovery purposes, it would be a brave LA that would take on the DWP.

[Anonymous]

I wonder how many days the DWP are allowed before an overpayment of, say, I/S becomes an official error? 🙄

[peterdelamothe]

The Commissioners have given their views that each case must be considered on its merits and that up to three months may be appropriate. The DWP have chosen to ignore the law on this, quite blatantly and without any real legal basis. They have made it clear that they are not budging either.

What should happen is that LA’s (or their Associations) should JR the Secretary of State on this point. It is tough to even think of a defence that DWP could advance. I suspect their lawyers would rush to settle as soon as the papers were served. I doubt it will happen though.

[Author]

Posts