Late notification of changes

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
  • #22528


    1. Claimant changes job in May 2004 and pay is higher.
    2. In March 2005 comes out of work and lives off a small amount of capital.
    3. In August 2005 claimant notifies the Council of the 2 changes.

    We have created an overpayment from May 2004 to August 2005. UE has been allowed from March 2005 to Aug 2005 based on the original job.

    At an AT a District Chairman I have a lot of faith in directed me to look at the decision again. His view was that the claim was superseded from May 2004 and from that date onwards benefit should be allowed on the true facts i.e. the period March 2005 to Aug 2005 should be calculated on nil income creating an underpayment of benefit.

    I would appreciate any views on the District Chairman’s opinion because it feels wrong but I cannot pin down the specific legislation that makes him right or wrong.


    I agree with you, I think the Tribunal’s decision is wrong.
    The Tribunal has made two mistakes I think.

    First, it’s over-simplifying things to say “the claim” has been superseded: only individual decisions can be superseded, and separate changes of circumstance givce rise to separate superseding decisions. You need to look at each one in isolation where they run in a sequence over time.

    Second, there is an important distinction between the date when a decisoin was [u:efe883644b]made[/u:efe883644b] and the date when it [u:efe883644b]had effect[/u:efe883644b]. See in particular D&A Reg 7(2)(a)(i).

    Have a look at your original decisions as first made, in sequence, at all stages between May 2004 and August 2005. Consider whether each of them should be revised or superseded in the light oif the ninformation you received in August 2005. My betting is that you made a decision in April 2005 (supersession for the uprating) in ignorance of the fact that the claimant was no longer working. It was too late to revise it when you found out, so instead you made a superseding decision from August [start of the week you found out, I hope – Reg 8(4)]. You also made a superseding decision for the period from May 2004 up to the date when that decision ran out (I assume April 2005) and it caused an overpayment – disadvantageous change in May 04. Correctly, you allowed underlying entitlement from March to April 05.

    Subject to a quibble about the week of the August 2005 superseding decision (start of same week, not next week) I reckon you have pretty much got everything right here.


    Thanks for that reply Peter but it has raised another query.

    A superseding decision was made effective from 1 April 2005 based on the claimant’s income prior to May 2004. When the information was received in August 2005 is it your view that:

    1. You leave the pre May 2004 income on the claim from 1 April 2005 to August 2005 &
    2. Supersede the decision from August 2005 based on nil income?

    At the moment we have used the post May 2004 income from 1 April 2005 to August 2005 and allowed UE. In this case it’s as broad as it’s long because the UE is equivalent to the Benefit in question. I just need to get my facts right for the District Chairman.

    Any help is appreciated.

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.