Living Together Case

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #31925
    lesleyb
    Participant

    I’m looking at an appeal where IS has stopped as the claimant was found to be living with her partner who is employed – HB/CTB overpayments calculated.

    However, her case was referred for prosecution and last week she admitted the charge and is awaiting sentence. Due to the evidence available I will be upholding our decision and submitting papers to the tribunals service, but can I mention in the papers that she has admitted the fraud in court?

    thanks

    #89301
    nolan1
    Participant

    You could if you need to.

    Is the appeal against the overpayments? or the living together decision? or both?

    #42290
    lesleyb
    Participant

    She has appealed the overpayments stating she did not at anytime knowingly or deliberately withhold material facts relating to her claim. Which seems a bit strange since she has admitted to the offence in court!

    #89302
    nolan1
    Participant

    Dont see why not then.

    #42292
    lesleyb
    Participant

    Thanks

    #89303
    Kevin D
    Participant

    [quote:c97044aa86=”lesleyb”]I’m looking at an appeal where IS has stopped as the claimant was found to be living with her partner who is employed – HB/CTB overpayments calculated.[/quote:c97044aa86]
    It’s unclear whether consideration has been given to whether the claimant was entitled to HB/CTB even with her partner. Bear in mind that LT and the cessation of IS are not grounds, in themselves, for ending HB/CTB.

    [quote:c97044aa86=”lesleyb”]…can I mention in the papers that she has admitted the fraud in court?[/quote:c97044aa86]
    Yes. But if the LA has made administration errors (e.g. terminating under DAR 14 without properly following DAR 13; failing to notify the clmt etc), it is still conceivable for the FtT to find for the claimant on a technicality. It would be wise to make sure all bases are covered.

    Also, a FtT is not necessarily bound by the findings of a Criminal Court. In this case, given the admission(s) by the clmt, this distinction is unlikely to be of concern – at least in terms of the substantive LT issue. But, I wouldn’t take anything for granted.

    One last point: if there are any papers in the prosecution bundle that are relevant to the “civil” appeal, those papers should be openly included in the evidence bundle.

    #89304
    lesleyb
    Participant

    HB/CTB including the partner’s income has already been considered and she doesn’t qualify – all the relevant regs have been followed and I have the evidence the DWP used in their decision – I only wanted to know whether or not I was allowed to mention the court case in my submission.

    thanks for your info.

    #89305
    Anonymous
    Guest

    It’s on the record so no problem at all, plus it is relevant to your decision. What the DWP have advised against in the past is making reference to a fraud investigation in the papers which is just thrown in for effect and adds nothing to the decison making. I have used records of an IUC in my submissions, [i:72d5560a1c]where it is relevant[/i:72d5560a1c]

    #89306
    lesleyb
    Participant

    Thanks for the additional info.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.