Terms & Conditions

[Karen]

can anyone point me in the right direction as to the law that states we have to make a decision on day 28, even if we don’t have all relevant proof.

i need it to place in an appeal submission – a clmt is objecting to the overpayment created when he decided to tell us about his private pension at a later date

[seanosul]

Day 14 Not 28 – anyway Reg 93 (previously Reg 91)

The Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 2006
93. Payment on account of a rent allowance

(1) Where it is impracticable for the relevant authority to make a decision on a claim for a rent allowance within 14 days of the claim for it having been made and that impracticability does not arise out of the failure of the claimant, without good cause, to furnish such information, certificates, documents or evidence as the authority reasonably requires and has requested or which has been requested by the Secretary of State, the authority shall make a payment on account of any entitlement to a rent allowance of such amount as it considers reasonable having regard to—
(a) such information which may at the time be available to it concerning the claimant´s circumstances; and
(b) any relevant determination made by a rent officer in exercise of the Housing Act functions.
(2) The notice of award of any payment on account of a rent allowance made under paragraph (1) shall contain a notice to the effect that if on the subsequent decision of the claim the person is not entitled to a rent allowance, or is entitled to an amount of rent allowance less than the amount of the payment on account, the whole of the amount paid on account or the excess of that amount over the entitlement to an allowance, as the case may be, will be recoverable from the person to whom the payment on account was made.
(3) Where on the basis of the subsequent decision the amount of rent allowance payable differs from the amount paid on account under paragraph (1), future payments of rent allowance shall be increased or reduced to take account of any underpayment or, as the case may be, overpayment.

[Karen]

thanks for that reply, but I never explained myself correctly re the interim payments.

Its for HB and CTB cases, and I was looking for the guidance with regards to the ‘adverse inference’ and the need to decide a claim, even if we don’t have all the evidence required.

the number of the CD would be great as well

Thanks 😆

[Karen]

it’s ok, I’ve found the CD – it’s R(H) 3/05

[Kevin D]

Maybe I’ve misinterpreted the situation, but several observations go as follows:

Where further info / evidence is required, the clmt MUST be given a MINIMUM of one calendar month (not 28 days) to provide what has been requested (time ticks from the date of the first request).

An LA should EXTEND that time limit if it reasonable (e.g. where a clmt has just started work and can’t physically provide 5 pay slips until the 6th, or 7th week etc). It is WEDNESBURY unreasonable for LAs to use the one month as a MAXIMUM in every case. One month is a MINIMUM.

If a point is reached where it is reasonable for the LA to say “info not provided”, there are TWO choices:

1) decide there is no entitlement simply on the grounds that the clmt has failed to satisfy HBR 86. That now constitutes a decision in its own right and carries the usual rights of appeal / reconsideration / statement of reasons etc. There is no need to make an adverse inference on circumstances.

2) take the extra (but (USUALLY) unnecessary) step of drawing an adverse inference about income / cap / household etc. This also counts as a full decision with the usual rights.

Interim payments: There is only a provision for “payment on account” for rent allowance cases. There is nothing in the Regs that allows “interim” assessments for CTB or rent rebate cases.

Payment on account can only be paid where the clmt is not at fault. IF there is evidence needed (& the clmt doesn’t have good cause for not providing it), a POA cannot be paid – see the wording in HBR 93(1) as reproduced earlier in the thread.

If a POA is made, but the LA subsequently decides there is no entitlement (either insufficient evidence, OR adverse inference), a POA is automatically deemed to be an overpayment per HBR 99.

Hope the above helps.

[Author]

Posts