Terms & Conditions

[graeme]

Hypothetically!

If you don’t tick the interim flag when you make a payment on account you’ll improve your new claim PI. What’s the worst that can happen?

What if you still send a letter to explain that it’s a payment on account?

All thoughts appreciated.

[Simo]

Not if it’s being paid on an IRL (on Northgate anyway)

Only counts when fully determined ie once ROD put on.

[chris harvey]

You will not be improving your PI, you will be falsifying it and if/when external auditors (who do carry out checks on the PI’s) spot it, you will be required to re-check every case and re-state the correct figure.
Deliberately falsifying the PI figures (as opposed to presenting them in the best light when the DWP guidance is not clear) helps no-one when the quartile performances and rankings are carried out. Hypothetically the national performance standard will be higher than it should really be if authorities were submitting true figures and honest authorities will have to try harder to meet the distorted standard.

[graeme]

We don’t have RODs because we’re an LHA area so the clock stops as soon as we calculate, so long as the Interim indicator isn’t checked.

[Kevin D]

Apart from the admin side (e.g. falsifying records), there are some practical implications.

If you overpay someone who is getting a (genuine) payment on account, any overpayment is normally recoverable, even if “official error”. Also, it is arguable that the clmt has no right of appeal against a POA. However, if you have made a “relevant decision”, all the usual rules apply – much more difficult for the LA.

For the record, I have no hesitation in saying that LAs who falsify their records are contemptable.

Regards

[graeme]

Thanks for the comments

Was just asked to ‘think outside the box’ by my managers for ways to improve PIs and came up with this idea as we’ve had a bit of trouble with assessment staff forgetting to remove the flag. Neither they nor I would consider trying to falsify our performance records.

I still think we may be able to make improvements in this area though. I think that currently we possibly make interim payments when we may be able to make a proper decision. For example, if a customer has just started work and only has 3 weekly payslips and we assess using an average of these is this a payment on account or proper payment? What about if they’ve just opened a bank account and only have one statement?

[Simo]

We’d certainly count the examples you have given as a fully determined claims. If we were happy 3 wages were true representation we wouldn’t ask for any more anyway. Could you not also say you are making an adverse inference on the wages if after waiting a month you haven’t got any more and aren’t happy with what you have got?

[Andy Shanks]

We would assess as well on ‘partial’ information, if the notification letter explains that they can send extra stuff in if the new wage slip/bank statement is different from the figures in the calculation [thus allowing a revision] I cannot see any problem. We would count this as a full decision with appeal rights and count the PI up to the date of this decision

[graeme]

If assessing a claim without all the required information is not necessarily a payment on account can you give me some examples of what you definitely would consider to be payment on account?

Thanks

[Simo]

We only make payments on account where waiting for rod’s. Will consider in exceptional circs eg can’t get wage details because computer blew up which held details and i don’t keep my wage slips.

If you do , as we all should, make payments on account i would consider cases where you have no wage details as ‘ payments on account’. Where you have no proof of actual rent. (would you pay these though?)

Will stand corrected on this but by calling it a payment on account you are only protecting yourselves if overpayments occur as any would be recoverable.

[seanosul]

[quote:737cefeee9=”simo”]We only make payments on account where waiting for rod’s. Will consider in exceptional circs eg can’t get wage details because computer blew up which held details and i don’t keep my wage slips.

If you do , as we all should, make payments on account i would consider cases where you have no wage details as ‘ payments on account’. Where you have no proof of actual rent. (would you pay these though?)

Will stand corrected on this but by calling it a payment on account you are only protecting yourselves if overpayments occur as any would be recoverable.[/quote:737cefeee9]

Simo, your practice is unlawful but not unusual.

Graeme, this is why reference to the law is far better than reference to the now defunct and potentially unlawful Verification Framework

Reg 29 (2)

[quote:737cefeee9]
Where the claimant has been in his employment for less than the period specified in paragraph (1)(a)(i) or (ii)—
(a) if he has received any earnings for the period that he has been in that employment and those earnings are likely to represent his average weekly earnings from that employment his average weekly earnings shall be estimated by reference to those earnings;
(b) in any other case, the relevant authority shall require the claimant´s employer to furnish an estimate of the claimant´s likely weekly earnings over such period as the relevant authority may require and the claimant´s average weekly earnings shall be estimated by reference to that estimate.
(3) Where the amount of a claimant´s earnings changes during an award the relevant authority shall estimate his average weekly earnings by reference to his likely earnings from the employment over such period as is appropriate in order that his average weekly earnings may be estimated accurately but the length of the period shall not in any case exceed 52 weeks.
[/quote:737cefeee9]

[chris harvey]

We had a BFI inspection earlier this year that picked up on this area. The BFI report has just been released this week and section 3.18 of it makes a brief reference to the problem.
Basically for new claims where the claimant has been working some time reg 29(1) requires us to use an average of 5 weeks or 2 months payslips. In order to get some money out to the claimant quickly we sometimes made a decision on less than 5 weekly/2 monthly payslips. We always at a later date got the remaining payslips and adjusted the claim as appropriate. This however was seen to be not complying with the law as we were told that we should not be making a decision until the claimant had supplied the correct number of payslips. So now we leave a claim open but not calced or paid and the new claim PI clock ticking until we have the correct number of payslips in every new claim where the claimant has been working for at least 5 weeks/2 months. We don’t make payments on account because we are waiting for more info from the claimant. Our new claim PI is also affected.

[jmembery]

Did you point to Reg 29 (2)(a) or 29(2)(b)?

What are the BFI going on about?

[graeme]

In Chris’s case Reg 29 (2) isn’t applicable because the customer has been working long enough to have the required amount of payslips. The issue is that they haven’t supplied them.

Chris – Were you doing POAs for these claims or calculating them as normal entitlement? Are the BFI saying you can’t do a POA if the information exists but the claimant doesn’t supply it (eg. thrown away payslips)?

[chris harvey]

We used to calc them as normal entitlement and treat any adjustments that were required when the remaining payslips were received as a revision.

[Author]

Posts