Terms & Conditions

[Mike Bailey]

I am sure I have read an UT decision or a thread on this message board which says that a Local Authority cannot make a revising/superseding decision raising an overpayment arising from a claimant’s entitlement to a passporting benefit ending in advance of the claimant being advised by the DWP of their overpayment decision.

I have had a search round on the message board but have obviously not used a magic search word to take me to what I want! If anyone could provide a link that would be great. In the alternative, if I have dreamt it all up let me know!

The case I have has a DWP Stirling decision-maker deciding on 14/6/11 that a decision should be revised back to their start date of 10/8/98 and that an overpayment should be calculated.(LTAHAW case). Local fraud office send us an FPA4 the next day 15/6/11 advising us of the decision. Usual ETD notifying us of IS termination is dated 23/6/11 On 7/7/11 we revise our decision after studying the fraud documents raising a huge overpayment. On 14/7/11 DWP debt management office issues a “notice of overpayment” to the claimant.

[Anonymous]

Not sure if this is what you are looking for, but it might be a start…

Menear / Hamilton – new CD

[Kevin D]

Is the case you have in mind [b]SD v Newcastle CC (HB) [2010] UKUT 306 (AAC)[/b] (aka CH/872/2009)?

You may still be ok Mike because of the differing legislation for IS compared to HB/CTB. For HB/CTB, there can be a single decision embodying the “entitlement” aspect and the “overpayment” aspect. However, for other social security benefits, the provisions of s.71 SSAA 1992 have the effect of requiring two distinct decisions in the process; one relating the entitlement then one relating to the overpayment.

So long as the IS “entitlement” decision had been made before the LA revised/superseded the HB/CTB decision(s ), you should be ok – even if the IS “overpayment” decision was taken later.

[d-stainsby]

I have had quite a few cases where DWP debt management issue a “decision” that IS has been overpaid, but no entiitlement decisions are notified. The IS overpayment decision is clearly invalid in these circumtances.

This is where you will fall foul of CH/872/2009, but in any case the end of IS of itself is not sufficient for a superseding decision ending HB/CTB (CH/3736/2006, CH/1664/2009)

What is more, the mere determination that the person has acquired a partner is not of itself sufficient for a superseding decision ending IS (CIS/4434/2004).

If the DWP have not done a full re-assessment and notified the new entitlement decisions to the claimant, any competent representative could make it very difficult for the LA to get its case off the ground

[Author]

Posts