Extended payment – following revision of HB CTB

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #22951
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Following a difference of opinion any views on the above (especially with ref to the regs etc) would be appreciated.

    Scenario – person has non-dep moved in and following request for info (none received) full non-dep deduction is put into place. A couple of weeks later, claimant tells us thatb he has started work (been on JSA(IB) for long enough) so EP is awarded. Non dep details provided a couple of days later, with good reason for delay so assessor amends from when non-dep moved in – hence the HB / CTB being revised in the week immediatly before the claim amt started work and therefore the start of the EP.

    Question now is should EP be revised as reg 73 (3) (a) states “the maximum hopusing benefit of any person mentioned in para 1 (my addition – Schedule 7 para 7 (B)) shall be that which was applicable to him in last week”

    Schedule 7 Part 1 (3) (1) says “the amount of the extended paymentr shall be equal to the amount of housing benefit which was payable to the claimant in the last benefit week”. It was both of these, but then the last weeks payment was subsequently revised.

    Our system (Northgate) has amended the payment immediatly before the EP period but not the EP period. However, it has amended the figures for the subsidy claim along the lines of the revised award. 🙄

    Although this is not a “the system does this, is it right?” query, it appears, in one way or another, to support either point of view. 😯

    My own feelings are that if you change the payments in the week before the EP, you should revise the EP, but I cannot find reference to this and would appreciate a technichal / legal argument for doing this. I had, foolishly, assumed that this was a straightforward matter until the other point of view was put forward and now can’t find the answer. 😳

    Any help, assistance or pointers appreciated – it is Monday morning 8)

    #10322
    Anonymous
    Guest

    It was Monday morning…..but its now Wednesday afternoon……. anyone?

    #10323
    Kevin D
    Participant

    With what little energy that is available, I’ll have a go….

    I’ve not looked any further at the wording of the regs – so I’m assuming that the copy/paste is correct, complete and in context.

    If so, then I don’t see any bar to amending the EP. The phrases “…applicable to him in that week…” & “….which was payable….” don’t limit the EP to what was actually PAID. It is what was APPLICABLE, or PAYABLE. Therefore, so long as there isn’t something else hidden away in the EP provisions, I don’t see that you’re prevented from revising / superseding as appropriate.

    Regards

    #10324
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Thanks, Kevin.
    This is as I thought, but sometimes can’t see wood for trees!! 😯 😳 8)

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.