L.A error Appeals

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #23464
    irene lowe
    Participant

    Thank you Kevin for a very comprehensive list of commissioner cases where L.A error has been established but has found to be recoverable.

    It would appear that great weight is given to the quality of notification letter and this is a significant factor in the commissioners findings as a result I have had cause to look again at those produced buy our own system (IBS)

    It would seem that if each income and relevant disregard is identified on the notification letters there can be little argument that a claimant was not aware if the income was to be included or disregarded – I have reviewed, in this instance a claim including WTC that attracts 16-30 hour disregard of £14.90, it does not show the disregard against the WTC benefit itself but includes it in the earnings disregard (i.e £25+ 14.90= 39.90) it would be helpful to know if this is common to you all or you have any other examples that we may need to review, whether the income be fully or only partially disregarded .

    #12744
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Surely your letters are correct to show the £14.90 disregard against earnings – it [i:1708319600]is[/i:1708319600] an earnings disregard for HB/CTB purposes.

    #12745
    irene lowe
    Participant

    the point I was trying to make was that on IBS letter it is shown as Tax Credit 16or 30hour disregard then the full amount of the award is shown
    Earned income on the same letter is shown as £XX.xx if which £xx.xx is disregarded and the reduced amoint is shown – this is confusing and clarity is of the essence.

    #12746
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I see your point…so that’s another example of the requirements of the HB/CTB regs muddying the waters then.

    #12747
    jamcon
    Participant

    I had a similar problem with disregards which ended up at Commissioners and is on the caselaw section in overpayments – case CH 866 2006. South Oxon uses I-world, so I’m not sure if it will be directly relevant for IBS letters, but it may be worth a look.

    #12748
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I think this is a letter design problem rather than a Regs problem. It should be possible for a letter to list all your income in full and then say:

    “We do not take all your income into account – we can ignore or “disregard” some income to recognise certain expenses that you face. In your case we have disregarded the following amounts:
    – [color=blue:e373cbae2c]£100 [/color:e373cbae2c]a week because you have to pay for child care
    – [color=blue:e373cbae2c]£14.90 [/color:e373cbae2c]a week because you work more than 16 hours
    – [color=blue:e373cbae2c]£25 [/color:e373cbae2c]a week because you are a lone parent

    This means that we are only taking into account [color=blue:e373cbae2c]£x[/color:e373cbae2c] a week of your income.”

    All the system has to do is fill in the blanks where I’ve written it in blue

    #12749
    irene lowe
    Participant

    Peter I agree with you – the simpler the notification the less chance anyone would have of not understanding – unfortunatly i am told the letter wording is down to IBS not us – all we can do is move some things around.

    #12750
    markp
    Participant

    The same with SX3 as well.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.