Extended Payment Appeals

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • Author
  • #22676

    Apologies offered immediately for being thick (first day after long weekend is my excuse)

    A claimant is refused an EPP on the grounds that they did not ‘apply’ with either the B/A or L/A within a month of the relevant change.

    An appeal against that decision is submitted (not really giving any grounds), but my understanding is that the appeal is OOJ as it has been assumed that no appeal lies against the decision to refuse an EPP or is it only that no appeal lies against the decision that the claimant / partner were not in receipt of I/S JSA(IB) for twenty six weeks or more?


    It is 10:35 on a Wednesday – and no answers

    Hence, pushing back to the top


    I’ll start but expect to be corrected!

    EPP’s were, prior to 2001, excluded from the Appeals Process. On reading, re – reading and re – reading the DAR’s etc it seems that they actually crept in to the appeals process (unless I’m missing something basic, it is pre coffee after all!!)

    Therefore I think your appeal is not duly made in that you have no grounds given for it rather than OOJ as described.

    Caffiene intake increasing now!!

    However, on reflection, more questions need to be considered. How did you come to know that the claimant had started work? Via an ETD? If so, did the ETD state that the Jobseeker had commenced full – time work and HBRO conditions satisfied? The ETD would give the information as to whether or not the 26 week rule would be satisfied but you would possibly also need to check if the claimant had been in receipt of JSA (C) immediately prior to JSA (IB) and then starting work.

    Or did you only discover this sequence of events a long time afterwards in which case they would not (necessarily) satisfy claiming the EPP within 28 days of starting work. Again that may depend on what was told to DWP.

    Another case of simplification? I think not!!

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


    Thanks Mark for starting.

    The ETD was recvd in June which confirmed that I/S had ceased effective from the start of April. The usual message about HBRO not satisified was included.

    The main reason why I am asking, is that the last authority I was at, when refusing an EP used to inform the claimant that if they had been misinformed by the B/A they should complain to them and seek redress that way


    That’s what I used to think until I failed with an OOJ appeal to TAS (as it was then) on an EPP refusal issue (Never got to tribunal as TAS1 not returned – quite usual for the NDM appeals accepted by TTS for us). However I think EPP’s may have crept in to the appeals process by oversight rather than design.

    Out of interest, there used to be a compensation scheme for misadvice when EPP’s first started. Does that still exist or did it quietly disappear?

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


    CH/5553/2002 is the decision that says the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with an appeal against those aspects of an Extended Payment that are under the DWP’s control. Without a certificate confirming the pre-conditions are satisfied, there is nothing to set the ball rolling and no decision for the Council to make.

    I haven’t done this yet, but I think it would be a good idea to have a close look at the wording of the EP Regs again, because they were heavily amended after this decision when BPs were scrapped. You need to study the EP Regs carefully and identify the precise point at which there is an issue for the Council to decide – the jurisdiction question might have to be revisited in the light of that.


    I used to think that it still existed but if these appeals are now accepted, I wonder if they got rid of the compensation scheme as well.

    Julian Hobson

    I think this is what you are looking for:


    I used to have a National audit office report (can’t find it now) that questioned the extent to which JCP staff promoted (or even knew about) EP’s. If you can find that I think it demonstrates the extent to which they are lacking and in that area and might add weight to a claim for redress.


    This is from the guidance manual…

    [quote:96890a3628]HB/CTB EP disputes
    9.130 The award or refusal of an EP is a relevant decision and is subject to the dispute process.

    26 week condition not satisfied
    9.131 If the only reason an EP is not awarded is because the Jobcentre Plus office has certified the 26 week condition is not satisfied, you may wish to advise claimants to contact the relevant Jobcentre Plus office for an explanation. However, this does not affect a claimant’s right to dispute the decision.

    9.132 If, following an enquiry from the claimant, the Jobcentre Plus office

    revises the decision, the Jobcentre Plus office will let the LA know
    does not revise the decision they will advise the claimant. The claimant is then responsible for pursuing the dispute with the LA

    I am not sure if this helps or not 😕


    Thanks James,

    It goes to show how much I don’t know, doesn’t it!!

    I suppose that one don’t get to see that many EP related appeals and so, when one does come along, the question of what to do with it foxes one!

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

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.