Terms & Conditions

[irene lowe]

Help please – Is there any case law I can use where the overpayment is definatly a result of L.A error but the claimant has failed to check entitlement letters – other than that there is no evidence that the claimant has contributed to the error

[Stalbansbenefits]

If I was representing the authority – CH/2554/2002

If I was representing the claimant – CH/2935/2005

[jane]

This is a great Commissioner’s decision about the customer’s duty and obligation to check the decision notices: CH/0866/2006.

[irene lowe]

Thank you Jane and St albans for your responses – from what i have gathered from those decisions relating to overpayments/L.A error the clarity of the notification letters is of essence – we intend to look at ours in more detail to satisfy ourselves that they are as clear as we can possibly make them – however it would appear we are in the hands of the software providers in many instances – lets hope they also read commisioners decision

[Anonymous]

You cant read Commissioners Decisons as if they were statutes. Commissionrs make decisons on the facts before them, although they can only overtun Tribunal decisions on points of law.

I often use a decision of Mr Deputy Commissioner Mark CH/2935/2005 where he wrote at paras 16-18:(the emphasis is mine)

16. If every letter had to be checked for financial accuracy by the recipient, that would be likely to entail either the recipient being forced to contact the council to go through those details with somebody, or going through it with some other person with professional experience of the relevant benefit. The council would not expect either its resources or those of agencies offering assistance with benefits to be used in this way, which would be a substantial drain on their resources.

17. In the standard form first page of the letter awarding the benefit, the final paragraph draws attention to the notes on the back, but none of those notes relate to checking the council’s calculations for errors. The letter does also ask the claimant to check the calculations carefully and to let the council know if he thinks that any of them are wrong. However, for the reasons given, I find it unrealistic to expect most claimants to be able to check those calculations, and I do not consider that the council could realistically have expected that the vast majority of claimants, whether of normal intelligence or not, would have been able to do so. [b][size=18:8be2debada]Nor do I consider it reasonable to expect claimants to act as the council’s auditors and to carry responsibility for any errors that they do not point out.[/[/size:8be2debada]b]

18. If in fact a claimant does check the figures and turns a blind eye to an error that he ought to realise was in his favour, then such a claimant would not be able to take advantage of regulation 99(2). That claimant could reasonably be expected to realise that there was an overpayment. However, a typical claimant cannot reasonably be expected to read or understand the calculations, and if such a claimant does not read them, or tries unsuccessfully to understand them, then the council cannot assert that that claimant could reasonably have been expected, when each payment was made, to have realised that it contained an element of overpayment.

[Stalbansbenefits]

That is why I said I would cite CH/2935/2006 [i:35d7f925fd]if I was representing the claimant.[/i:35d7f925fd]

It does seem slightly contrary to other decisions on what could be reasonably expected of the claimant though.

[jmembery]

I think you are on fairly good ground if the error relates to an income type specified in the letter.

E.G the letter says- “Tax Credit – £25.00 per week” when the claimant actually receives £50.00 per week.

I think you are on much less safe ground if;

It is an income amount that is wrong, but the amount received by the claimant is irregular or is received other than weekly (where the letter shows weekly). Or the difference between the income used and received is small.

The applicable amount is wrong for whatever reason.

If the expense type is not clearly described. I.E if it says childcare paid out when they don’t pay childcare you should be alright but if it just says “expenses” (Thank you Northgate) then no chance.

Claimant’s clearly have a responsibility to take reasonable steps to make certain the entitlement is right, it is their claim after all, BUT I don’t think they can be expected to understand technical details or spot non obvious errors.

[Anonymous]

CH2554/2002 p13 what it is reasonable to expect a claimant to realise. Claimant states ‘ I was not aware that an ovp could occur due to household income’ is their a cd which covers this

[Author]

Posts