Income support entitlement-when is claimant ON Income suppor

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #31669
    Angelao
    Participant

    Hi

    I am dealing with an appeal against a large OP-Fraud case-the claimant has been found to be running a taxi business. The Income Support decision states that the claimant is enitlted to Income Support for the period 07/04/03 to 01/04/07 as he was not in remunerative work but due to his self-emplyed earnings he has been overpaid. The IS overpayment schedule states that the correct amount of IS for the period is nil!

    Para 12 of schedule 4 -HB states that earnings are disregarded if a claimant is ON Income Support. Just wondering whether ‘ON’ should be interpretated as entitled to Income Support -which apparently he is -or not as although there is entitlement nothing should have been paid! Can’t find any analysis or CD’s regarding this so general opinion in section is that claimant is not ON IS -any views??

    #88573
    Kevin D
    Participant

    “On income support” has been equated to being “lawfully entitled”. Relevant case law includes, amongst others,

    R(oao Prince) v Soc Sec Cmmr [2009] EWHC Admin 1181

    R v South Ribble BC ex parte Hamilton [2000] EWCA Civ 518 & 33 HLR 104 CA

    CH/1987/2009

    #88574
    Anonymous
    Guest

    [quote:668492bb47]not in remunerative work but due to his self-emplyed earnings he has been overpaid[/quote:668492bb47]
    Pardon? 😀

    If he had self-employed earnings how can he be not in remunerative work?

    #88575
    Anonymous
    Guest

    [quote:07b2421e09=”MartinW”][quote:07b2421e09]not in remunerative work but due to his self-emplyed earnings he has been overpaid[/quote:07b2421e09]
    Pardon? 😀

    If he had self-employed earnings how can he be not in remunerative work?[/quote:07b2421e09]

    Maybe he worked <16 hours p/wk?? Must have been a well paid run he had! 😉

    #88576
    Angelao
    Participant

    Thanks Kevin

    RE self employed earnings-yes that was my thought-apparently they are happy to accept that he did not work over 16 hours a week -but received self emplyed earnings from his business!

    #88577
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Don’t confuse internal DWP jargon/computer-speak with the true facts seen from the perspective of an outsider.

    Clearly the claimant is not “entitled to” or “on” Income Support at any time. The DWP has decidede that he should never have been paid IS at all. When they say he is “entitled” to IS between 2003 and 2007, what they mean is that he is a member of a group potentially entitled to IS, subject to means test, as distinct from JSA or Pension Credit (and more recently ESA). The Queen, for example, is the kind of person who is potentially entitled to Pension Credit. I assume this claimant was either sick, a lone parent or a carer and was therefore in the right client group, and because he worked less than 16 hours he was not automatically excluded from IS at the pre-means test stage.

    So the IS assessment proceeds to the means test … and it turns out he is not entitled because his income is too high. The DWP has ndecided he was never entitled to IS, so he was never properly “on” IS, so you are free to make your own decision.

    #41477
    Angelao
    Participant

    Yes I agree with Peter’s response. Unfortunately however the IS decision clearly statess -‘he is entitled to Income support for the period……’
    Our Fraud Officers say that they are getting a lot of decisions such as this where is cannot be proven that the customer works over 16 hours but it can be proven they have ‘income.’ DWP’s verbal response is that he is definately entitled -and this should passport him to HB–think some serious liaison required!

    #88578
    Anonymous
    Guest

    That is almost as barmy as the CIS notes that say the claimant is entitled to some conbtribution-based and some income-based benefit, well not really, but we are not telling you which one so you have to guess.

    FFS, your claimant is NOT entitled to Income Support. As you say, some liaison/fish-slapping is in order.

    #88579
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Surely it depends what his earnings are? The only way to be sure is to get the earnings evidence from DWP and work out his IS entitlement. Of course this should not be necessary, but advice workers have to do this all the time.

    Getting hold of the earnings evidence may also enable you to re-assess this case under reg 104 HBR – presumably your fraud colleagues have/ought to have the evidence if they are involved in an investigation.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.