Extended Payment Period – Failed to Sign

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #38461
    liffe
    Participant

    We have received an ETD stating a customer has failed to sign. When the cic form has been completed he has stated he has started work. The 26 week/5wk rule has been satisfied, but he has not told JC+ about the work. Can we grant the EPP or do we not, as JC+ have not given the Job Grant & run on?
    Also to award an EPP, does the work have to be 16 hours or more (remunerative)?

    #108429
    Andy Thurman
    Keymaster

    As per similar recent posts – the job grant award is irrelevant. HBR 72 covers EP conditions – nothing to do with JC+!! Nothing within it about number of hours either. As long as you can demonstrate clearly that the “failure to sign” was itself due to taking up work, I’d allow the EP.

    #108438
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Have you changed your mind since the attached then, Kevin?

    EPP

    #108437
    Kevin D
    Participant

    See new post below.

    #108441
    Kevin D
    Participant

    No Jerry – thanks for pointing out my error. I had completely overlooked the precise requirement of HBR 72 :O (rust is firmly setting in having been all but out of benefits for more than a year – need to be more careful when posting because of that!). My apologies to Lynn for the oversight.

    Unless the DWP is satisfied that a qualifying benefit ceased as a result of the clmt returning to work, no EP. But, I *would* check to see if the wording on the ETD reflected reality given the inconsistency of the reliability of DWP computer generated documents.

    #108443
    liffe
    Participant

    Thanks guys for all your help

    #108442
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I was trying to find the thread i created on the same topic a couple of years ago that you helped me with, Kevin, where you offered the same advice as the link above – fortunately i came across a similar thread with the same response.

    Lynn – you could do what i did when i had the same scenario – ask the claimant to contact the DWP and get the JSA end reason/ date amended to reflect the fact they returned to work, it worked in my case!

    #108452
    Andy Thurman
    Keymaster

    I see what Kevin is saying (read the other topic linked) but respectfully disagree. HBR 72 does not state that the DWP decision reason matters – merely that the JSA/IS/ESA ended because of the work. Now that the “notify within 4 weeks” clause has gone, a claimant does not need to report to either DWP or LA within that time frame. If they haven’t, then JSA end reason will be failing to sign. As long as it can then be established that the reason for the failure to sign was the commencement of employment, I think the conditions are met.

    #108465
    nickkeogh
    Participant

    For what it’s worth I agree with Kevin on this one. Although morally I would want to award the EP, HBR72 seems pretty clear-cut in that the qualifying benefit must have ceased due to the reasons prescribed and if the DWP were completely unaware that any of these reasons existed when the qualifying benefit ended then I can’t see how the EP conditions are satisfied. This is also the case if an LA has total discretion of the EP conditions being satisfied. The claimant may have failed to sign because he started work but entitlement to the qualifying benefit itself cannot have ended for that reason if the DWP had no knowledge that work had commenced. As Kevin has stated, the sole adjudicator as to entitlement to the qualifying benefit is the DWP, not us or the claimant.

    #108463
    Kevin D
    Participant

    [quote=Andy Thurman]…HBR 72 does not state that the DWP decision reason matters – merely that the JSA/IS/ESA ended because of the work.[/quote]

    That’s the point at issue Andy. Where we disagree is on whether the DWP reason matters. In my view it does because of the wording of HBR 72(1)(b). This makes clear reference to qualifying benefits ending because of…(reasons then listed). The crux here is that qualifying benefits are administered by the DWP and only the DWP has the power to determine the reasons for the end of those benefits. Therefore, if the DWP determine a qualifying benefit ended for reason “X”, that is the reason why it ended in law and the LA doesn’t have the power to subsitute reason “Y” in place of X.

    I’ve tried to take an objective view of what I would do if a clmt appealed and I was dealing with the appeal for the LA. Based on the wording of the legislation, I’d be reasonably happy to take it to Tribunal. In support, I’d point to the reasoning in R(H ) 3/06 where the Cmmr found that, for “old” reg 13 purposes, a determination as to incapacity must be determined by the DWP. In anticipation of it being argued that “old” HBR 13 makes express reference to legislation and HBR 72 doesn’t, I would put to the FtT that what counts is whether the determination of a reason for ending a DWP qualifying benefit can be determined by the LA (I would obviously argue it is legally impossible for that to be so).

    As I freely acknowledged in the earlier thread identified by Jerry, I imagine my view was (and is) in the minority. But that wouldn’t be the first time :).

    #109981
    Kevin D
    Participant

    {deleted post}

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.