Terms & Conditions

[arenton]

Hello All,

I’m just wondering if anyone can tell me if this has been a problem for their Council and how you have dealt with it?

We have a joint HB/CTB claim form, and some time ago it was decided that we had to make a decision on both HB and CTB for [b:62097edf79]ALL[/b:62097edf79] claims recieved even if clearly a CTB only claim. (Previously we would only key CTB where the claim was clearly CTB only, now we register both CTB and HB claim parts but show the HB and “Ineligible”).

We use Northgate and so at present for a claim from a homeowner we would key the CTB claim part as normal- but key on an HB claim period with an Ineligible reason code of NRL- No Rent Liability.

We have just discovered that this HB claim we have “decided” in the above manner does NOT generate a NEW CLAIM stat in the STATS 124. A similar claim in which only HB was awarded because there was no CTAX liability (same procedure- but NCL- No Ctax Liability ineligible code was used) WOULD produce a NEW claim Stat for Stats 124.

We have been told by Northgate that this is because with an ineligible HB claim- we do not select a tenancy type- so the system does not know where to place the NEW claim stat in Stats 124. This does make sense i suppose, and obviously there is only one cell for CTB so there is no problem for CTB.

But they say we must be the only LA which keys HB periods in Joint Benefit claim from Homeowners- and that there is no reason for us to do this. Whereas we thought we had now to decide ALL claims appart from those that were withdrawn?

So my question really is-

Should we key BOTH claim parts in cases where clearly only one benefit is possible?

If so are we correct to key the HB side in Homeowner cases as “Ineligible”?

And if keying as “Ineligible” in this way does not produce a New Claim stat- do other Councils’s Key these in a different way?

Any contributions would be gratefully recieved- Thanks

[jmembery]

I would say that you do not create an HB claim where the claimant is clearly not making one.

You are in effect “forcing” people who claim CTB to also claim HB even if they do not want to do so.

[Jules]

I’m not sure why you would want to key in a claim for HB when someone is a homeowner. I know that we need to make a decision on all claims but surely homeowners are only claiming CTB and not HB?

[arenton]

Well we took the view that as our claim form is for both HB and CTB, and there is no question which says “Which benefit do you wish to claim”- that any completed claim form was therefore an application for both HB and CTB. Even if it was clear the person would only get one.

And as we must make a decision on ALL claims- some kind of decision was required on both claim types- which should be notified to the claimant.

This was generally regarded at the time- by most posts on this board to be the right thing to do- unless the claimant could tick a box on the claim form indicating which benefit they wished to claim.

Do you think this approach is wrong?

[Simo]

We wouldn’t register a HB period for an owner occupier like the other posters.

[Anonymous]

Me neither.

[jmembery]

Nice idea though, process a HB claim for all owner occupiers who claim CTB. Decide in 1 day that they are not entitled to HB. Register them for 124 purposes as new claims that have taken 1 day to process. Watch as BVPI figures improve dramatically!!!

[arenton]

Thanks for your replies folks,

But we genuinely believe we are working correctly following the Commisioners Decision and U9/2004. I thought this clarified that ALL claims must have a decision made.

Do your claim forms have tick boxes for the claimant to indicate whether they are applying for HB, CTB, or both?

As ours is a joint application form (as is the HCTB1 form), we feel we are legally obliged to give a decision on both benefits??

Are we misguided in this??

[Anonymous]

Sorry, but I can’t see this.

If you receive a claim from someone for CTB only, why would you think you have to make a decision on HB. THey’re not claiming HB, just CTB.

The fact you have a joint claim form doesn’t mean that everyone who completes one is claiming both benefits.

[chris harvey]

I think we should bear in mind that HB and CTB are legally two entirely separate benefits and it is only for administrative convenience that the same office of a LA process these using one claim form. I know there used to be some authorities where HB and CTB were processed in separate offices (Housing/Finance).
I think it is entirely wrong to record an owner occupier as an HB claim as the claimant is clearly not claiming both benefits. Most claim forms ask if you own or rent the property and from this it is usually clear which benefit is being claimed without the claimant specifically being asked “do you want to claim HB or CTB or both”.
True, we need to make a decision on every claim but there is no real claim in these cases for the wrong benefit so a decision is not necessary. I don’t think we would be acting contrary to the law by doing this.

[Anonymous]

Some authorities that I have worked have claim forms which say “if you are claiming Council Tax Benefit only, please complete parts blah, blah and blah of this form” and so on.

[arenton]

Okay folks,

Thanks for your replies. I take it though you would still process a CTB claim in the same circumstances if the claimant was say a student, or mentally impaired and were therefore exempt from CTAX. Key on an ineligible CTB claim part- rather than assume CTB was not claimed?

When we began keying both claim parts in all cases- it was unpopular with those who keyed the claims- if we now tell them it’s not necessary- there might be a lynch mob after me!!

This may have been my last post to this message board!!!!

Cheers

[seanosul]

[quote:c128617e47=”chris harvey”]I think we should bear in mind that HB and CTB are legally two entirely separate benefits and it is only for administrative convenience that the same office of a LA process these using one claim form. I know there used to be some authorities where HB and CTB were processed in separate offices (Housing/Finance). [/quote:c128617e47]

In those authorities it is quite clear when one benefit is claimed and the other is not. There are none of the issues surrounding the joint claim form that occur when entitlement to CTB / HB ends and not the other, that we have become fully aware of.

Of all the PI fiddles out there (and I am not suggesting that this is being done as a PI fiddle in any way) this seems a perfectly justifiable approach.

[quote:c128617e47]I think it is entirely wrong to record an owner occupier as an HB claim as the claimant is clearly not claiming both benefits.[/quote:c128617e47]

Is it clear, that the claimant is not making an overall claim for assistance with their housing costs ? A decision letter advising an owner occupier that they are not entitled to HB but may be entitled to assistance with mortgages through Income Support seems like good customer service.

[quote:c128617e47=”chris harvey”]I don’t think we would be acting contrary to the law by doing this.[/quote:c128617e47]

I do not think ARENTON is acting contrary to the law by taking his approach either.

I may be playing devils advocate 👿 ignore the PI side, think of the admin subsidy and say why it is wrong.

[Anthony Sandys]

On the flip side, if someone is claiming HB as a private tenant, say in a hostel, would you decide an unsuccessful CTB claim on the basis that they have no CT liability?

Sorry, but I don’t buy this “good customer service” to let owner occupiers know that they can’t claim HB. Most claim forms I’ve seen have “Help with rent and/or Council Tax” clearly written on the front, and how many forms have questions about mortgages? Yes we get enquiries from people who ask if HB can pay their mortgage, but I can’t see anyone filling out a HB claim form on the mistaken belief that it’s some form of mortgage rebate.

I’m sure someone will come back with an example of someone who did just that, but let’s be honest, it’s a PI fiddle, nothing more.

[arenton]

Again – thanks for your replies.

But i’d just like to make clear we had NO INTENTION of fiddling anything here.

As stated above- we genuinely felt that we were obliged to give a decision on ALL claims apart from those that are withdrawn. As our form was joint, it constituted a claim for both benefits- hence a decision was required for both, no matter what liability the claimant had/did not have. That was our only consideration

Cheers

[Author]

Posts