Terms & Conditions

[ig2kbar]

got myself confused on this one….
decision 9 may 06 qualifies for small amount of hb and zero ctax bens
(entitlement worked out using indicative rent level)
decision 30 may 06 advising level of hb increased due to rent officer decison received.
Appeal (coincidentally) 30 May 06 appealing against level of bens and zero ctax as advised on 09 may – advising earnings used not representative of normal wage as included overtime would provide proof overtime ceased.
Decision maker looked at appeal on 21st june and considered revising and asked sent letter asking for proof of current earnings and letter from employer stating overtime ceased (14 days given for return)
its now 14 days later – no response from appellant want to prepare sub – But decision she is appealing against HAS been revised advantageously for housing benefit (albiet not on reasons she is appealing about i.e earnings not rent officer decison) and she still remains non q for ctax???
Silly question time?? has hb side lapsed??? is it now ‘not duly made’ as she failed to respond to request for further info – will the sub just be for non q on ctax only…….. 😆

[Anonymous]

It was probably unnecessary (some would say mistaken) to make the first HB decision – you weren’t ready without the RO valuation and a payment on account would have been simpler. Nevertheless, you did make a decision, the claimant appealed against it, and you revised it in the claimant’s favour so I would say the HB appeal against Decision 1 has lapsed.

It seems the claimant did not make a new appeal against decision 2, but it is hard to see how they could have known they needed to; they must now go through the formality of appealing again and I would be looking to accept any new appeal out of time at LA level under Reg 19(6)(b) – maybe that’s bending the rules a bit but it’s the easiest way.

As for CTB, there was only one decision and they have failed to provide particulars within the bare minimum time allowed by the Regs. It will be for the TS to decide whether to strike out for this reason or go ahead.

So as things stand you only have one live appeal – the CTB one, and that may be on the verge of being struck out for failing to provide information. But I think it would be polite to invite a new HB appeal at this stage.

[ig2kbar]

Thanks Peter – that was really helpful -!

[Anonymous]

I received an appeal against an overpayment on 3 points –

1) that we were using an incorrect amount for wages
2) that the overpayment should not be recovered due to LA error (backlog)
3) that the overpayment should not be recovered from the landlord (the claimant has appealed)

I have amended the wages used and created a credit, which has been used to reduce the overpayment.

By reducing the overpayment the appeal lapses, but she obviously will still want to appeal the recovery aspect.

Do I have to lapse the appeal or can I accept the original appeal as still being valid as the 2nd and 3rd points have not been addressed?

From the LA’s point of view it is better to lapse it, but given the fact that she will appeal again, doesn’t it make more sense to keep this appeal alive?

Thanks

[Kevin D]

As a techie point, when you amended the wages, was this a [b:c03fca10b0]revision[/b:c03fca10b0], or a [b:c03fca10b0]supersession[/b:c03fca10b0]?

If it was a supersession, the appeal hasn’t lapsed.

However, if it was a revision, the appeal lapses. So, new notifs + new appeal rights will be needed etc. However, see the wholly contradictory final para below 😯 .

Although too late in this case (if a [u:c03fca10b0]revision[/u:c03fca10b0] has occurred), the only way it could have been avoided would have been to deliberately NOT revise the decision until the appeal has been to Tribunal. By not revising, the appeal doesn’t lapse. Prepare the case for TTS in the normal way, BUT with the concession that the LA accepts that x/y/z amendments should be done.

Having thought about the fact that two points have not been revised in the clmt’s favour, it is open to suggestion that the decision, [u:c03fca10b0]as a whole[/u:c03fca10b0], has not in fact been revised in the clmt’s favour. If that is correct, the appeal is still live.

Hope this helps.

[Anonymous]

thanks – I think this is a supercession so the appeal won’t lapse.

[Author]

Posts