Terms & Conditions

[Anonymous]

Difference of opinion here so seeking views from the outside world.

How would you classify an overpayment arising from a tenant passing away?

For what it’s worth, my view is that if we have received notification from the registrar (or surviving partner) then it’s LA Error. If however, we are not notified (perhaps because they die out of the district) then it’s other error until we are notified and then if we don’t act on it LA error for any subsequent o/p.

What do you think?

[seanosul]

I would agree with that except where the Council is unitary or a Borough as they would have a registrars unit and in those cases I would classify the overpayment as LA Error from the date the Registrar is informed.

[Kevin D]

From the date the Registrar is informed? Well, maybe for subsidy, but for recoverability the LA is entitled to a reasonable time to process the change. Cmmr decisions confirm that it is not official error for delay periods ranging from 9 days to over one month…..

Regards

[jerikaz]

This is interesting as at our LA historically we have always classified any overpayments caused by the delay in notification of the death as claimant error. I know that it sounds stupid when written down in black or white. How on earth can the claimant notify you of his death!

I think that we have taken the view in the past that it is the responsibility of the executors to notify any organisations/bodies of the death and the executors are acting on behalf of the claimant.

You may have a situation, indeed, where the death has occurred outside the LA area and the Registrars are unaware of the death.

However, it may be one of those situations, whereby, it has always been done that way, therefore it is the right way. I would be interested to hear any other views on this. Thanks

[Kevin D]

jerikaz:

Maybe a simpler approach….

If there is no official error, then the o/p is recoverable – irrespective of how unfortunate any of the surrounding circumstances may be. It doesn’t need to be “clmt error” – the only question is whether there is any “official error”.

As an aside, wouldn’t “Hinchy” apply in the case of a unitary authority? i.e. the functions of the two parts of the LA are so different, notification to one part would not count as notification for the purpose of the other.

Regards

[Anonymous]

It’s actually to the authority’s advantage if this is “just-one-of-those-things-no-one’s-error” rather than claimant error (and I think that’s how it is). If it is claimant error your options for recovery are limited to the estate. If it’s no-one’s error then other targets are potentially drawn in, like the partner if they had one (Dear Mrs Claimant, words cannot express …. deepest sympathies …. this difficult time … bill … 28 days … court action … bailiff) and the landlord if they received direct payments. This is because you would find no target under Reg 101(2)(a) and so you would drop through to Reg 101(2)(b).

I have argued in the past that, notwithstanding Hinchy, some LA functions are so closely related that it ought to be impossible to know a piece of information for one purpose and not know it for another (like taxation and CTB issues). But in this instance, I agree with Kevin that the Hinchy principle would probably excuse a unitary LA from being guilty of an error at least in the short term if the Registrar knows something before Benefits knows about it. I think there probably ought to be some kind of corporate exception report based on registered deaths, but it’s a bit demanding to expect it to operate instantaneously.

[markp]

Phil,

Was the deceased a C Tax payer ? (you haven’t stated)

If so, do you have a system where Registrars pass the “deceased list” to Council Tax, triggering benefit postings and this is how we identify the majority of our deaths.

For my 2 1/2 pworth I too would consider it as other. What about exercising dicretion not to recover any OP?

Just my pre-caffeine thoughts.

Do I know what I'm doing? The jury's out on that........................

[Stalbansbenefits]

I agree with Kevin. If you look at a subsidy claim form, there is no cell for ‘claimant error overpayment’, rather simply one for ‘eligible overpayments’. If it’s not LA error (or DWP error, or a technical overpayment where benefit is credited in advance), it’s an eligible overpayment…

[Anonymous]

Just a thought, because we were discussing this yesterday.

How would you classify the Council Tax Benefit Overpayment?

Either Eligible or LA error overpayment depending on when you were told
or
Technical Overpayment because there was no liability from the date he died? (in this respect a bit like how you would treat the overpayment if they had moved out(!))

I’m thinking technical……

Mark

[Anonymous]

Mark, technical if the property is given an exemption from the day after the claimant dies.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think it’s even technical. I think the technical subsidy category is for cases where the claimant remains liable for Council Tax after the date on which the Council c-c-c-c-c-cancels (there I’ve said it) CTB. Because CTB for the whole year is “paid” up front at the start of the year in the form of a reduced bill for the whole year, any subsequent in-year change in the claimant’s financial circumstances will leave some excess benefit in place for the remainder of the year. This is the technical bit that is always recoverable and attracts no subsidy.

If the claimant is not liable for Council tax, their CTB ceases to exist – there is no overpayment. CTB only exists as a reduction in the amount billed. If there is no bill, you cannot have CTB. You cannot reduce nothing.

That’s how I would see it – just don’t report it as benefit expenditure in the first place.

[seanosul]

[quote:090b27eced=”Mark E”]Just a thought, because we were discussing this yesterday.

How would you classify the Council Tax Benefit Overpayment?

Either Eligible or LA error overpayment depending on when you were told
or
Technical Overpayment because there was no liability from the date he died? (in this respect a bit like how you would treat the overpayment if they had moved out(!))

I’m thinking technical……

Mark[/quote:090b27eced]

This bit has caused some controversy in the past as some systems categorise the overpayment as other or technical. I would agree that the overpayment cannot be anything else but technical as there is no liability. The DWP however have a strange view about categorisation of LA Error v technical which ceratinly does not apply to HB. LA Error is now supposed to prioritise Technical. The DWP argument is for subsidy the overpayment from the date informed to the date raised should be LA error and not technical. Technical should therefore start from the date of action.

Those with very low threshold levels may benefit from those but those at the borderline may lose.

With regard to Hinchy, I have had several arguments with auditors and on here about the effective date of LA Error for subsidy purposes. The effective date of LA error is very poorly designed in law and it neither benefits the LAs, the system designers (of which one of the larger ones is awful at allocating LA Error) or even the DWP.

[jmembery]

I am with Peter on this one, not “technical” (cell 72) but “reduced Council Tax Liability”etc (Cell 73)

Jeff

[seanosul]

Even on reduced liability (which one system at least counts the same as technical) LA Error takes precedence. Hence the rush of subsidy fixes applied to technical overpayments in 2004/05.

[jmembery]

LA error certainly takes precedence over “Technical” but I don’t think it does over reduced liability.

Always willing to be proved wrong though.

[Author]

Posts