Intervention – Claimant refuses visit

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
  • #22697

    We have a case where a claim has been selected for a visit. The claimant has contacted us stating that she does not wish anybody from the Authority to visit her home, and has questioned our right to visit her, but has said that she is happy to complete a postal review.

    Having checked the security manual it is stated that we should consider if there is any other way of obtaining the necessary evidence.

    Does this mean that the claimant can choose their method of review? I am cautious as to why the claimant would not with us to visit, is there something to hide? Or can we insist on undertaking a visit review and suspend benefit if refused?

    Thanks for your help

    Kevin D

    This is not a popular view in this forum, but I stand by it.

    On the face of it, you could rely on [b:074901f358]CH/4390/2003[/b:074901f358] as being a legal basis on which to insist on a visit. However, I don’t think it can be. Firstly, even the Commissioner in that case did not suggest there was any right of entry. Secondly, in [b:074901f358]R v Liverpool CC ex p JOHNSON (1994)[/b:074901f358] QBD, it was emphatically found that HBR 73 (as it was) did not give the LA the right to insist on an oral interview.

    I think the limit of an LAs power is to visit purely to check occupancy (i.e. door is answered; that’s it). But, the LA cannot insist on entry and cannot insist on engaging the clmt (or anyone else for that matter) in any further involvement with the visit.

    In addition to the above, on a wider note, “renewal” claims were abolished from April 2004. There was no replacement. Therefore, I still stand by the view that “interventions” may well be unlawful.

    In short, I think your clmt is within her rights to insist that all HB/CTB matters are conducted by correspondence.

    In my view, you can only suspend if you have a genuine doubt about entitlement. I don’t think a clmt exercising his / her rights to refuse a home review is grounds for such a doubt. At least not in, or of, itself.



    Although I agree with Kevin that Johnson confirmed that the LA has no right to insist on an oral interview, it did go on to find that in the absence of such an interview the LA “may” decide that the claimant has not established their entitlement to HB/CTB.

    Having said that, unless you have a good reason why only a visit can establish entitlement I can see any reason why you would want to insist upon one.


    We had a customer that refused a visit, she wrote to us saying that we had no right blah, blah, blah.

    We insisted saying that at the least we needed to verify residence, then we heard nothing and Fraud ended up taking it on.

    Land registry searches revealed that she part owned the property, part owned another in Brighton with the same chap and had been out of the country for months which is why she insisted on dealing with everything by post.

    Before she knew that an investigation had commenced she was threatening us with MP letters etc, funnily enough as soon as Fraud wrote inviting her in for an interview she withdrew the claim!

    If we’d just switched to a postal review she’d probably still be receiving HB now.

    Moral of the story, it’s worth pushing a bit when they don’t want a visit!


Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.