Terms & Conditions

[RobBox]

I know this has been done to death before but I would like to get some idea as to what L/A’s actually do.

If clmt is working and receiving HB but then loses job and awarded JSAib from Tuesday 10.10.06 as I understand it the change should be effective from 10.10.06 i.e. the date it actually occurred.

But is this what councils are doing or are they taking it from the Monday following?

[chrisb]

Northgate doesn’t currently allow anything other than a Monday change date.

[RobBox]

Thanks for the responses so far, please keep them coming. I have to admit that here we, up till now would have used the Monday following date.

Just goes to show the worth of bringing in an outside trainer to do some refresher stuff around changes of circumstances, although some of the assessment people are now scratching their heads and wondering what else we don’t know if we have missed such a fundamental change as this!

[trina]

Seem to have missed this one as well. 😳 What reg covers this?
Thanks.

[Kevin D]

Peter Barker has posted extensively on this topic – managed to dig out a thread with one of his posts on this issue (includes reg nos):

new.hbinfo.org.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6933

Regards

[jerikaz]

From the votes cast so far are for monday after. What i’d like to know is why this is? At my LA we do monday after. Will checkout the thread mentioned.

[Anonymous]

In my view the only circumstance in which it would be on the same day is if there happened to be a rent change as well. I’m also a bit concerned by the number of people saying things along the lines of “Our system does so and so…” – so that’s all right then. Be aware that sometimes users will have to override what software is programmed to do. It’s no more infallible than highly paid external trainers!

[RobBox]

The highly paid external trainer, when divided between 24 members of staff actually worked out very cheap.

Having looked at Peters previous posting on this subject and read D&A Regs 7(2)(i) and 8(14) and A35/03 am finding it hard to disagree with him?

[chrisb]

I also find it very hard to disagree with Peter’s interpretation, and have raised a request with Northgate for a system fix.

In the meantime, if anyone has figured out a Northgate work-around, it would be useful to know.

In further support of Peter’s interpretation, the following are questions put to ACI division in Leeds about the correct dates (needed to convince Northgate)

Questions[quote:a3ea79d2d3]Can you please confirm:

1) that the example given in paragraph 4 of A35/03 is correct, and the HB award should correctly be superseded from Friday 7 November 2003.

2) if we have an existing HB award (starting from 13 March 2006) being paid on the basis of earned income, and receive notification that Jobseekers Allowance has been awarded from 19 July 2006, the HB decision should be superseded with effect from Wednesday 19 July 2006, not from Monday 25 July 2006[/quote:a3ea79d2d3]
Reply:[quote:a3ea79d2d3]Thank you for your request for guidance re effective dates on supersession.

I confirm that the guidance in A35/03, para 4 still applies and that the effective date of supersession in the example given there is 7.11.03.

I also confirm that in the further example you gave that the HB decision is superseded from from 19.7.06 and not 25.7.06.

The above guidance reflects the provisions of reg 7(2) (i) and reg 8 (14) of the HB & CTB (D & A) regs reg 2001.[/quote:a3ea79d2d3]

[Anonymous]

I’ve had a look at the D&A Regs referred to and in my humble opinion they only apply where a relevant benefit is awarded PRIOR to HB award starting i.e. if JSA awarded day before entitlement starts you don’t wait until the following Monday you take it in from start of claim. In all other circumstances following Monday rule applies.

I also hasten caution about accepting what the Adelphi tell you as gospel. They are civil servants and in many cases not as experienced as we are nor do they understand HB at all, having never worked in a LA. The definitive answer would have to come from Solicitors’ branch

[chrisb]

Sorry Chris, but I can’t agree with you.

D&A Regs 7 and 8 are about supersession, not revision, so must apply when relevant benefits are awarded/increased during an HB/CTB award.

D&A Reg 4(7B) gives the equivalent for revision.

[Kevin D]

For what it’s worth, I used to think the “following Monday” was correct.

However, following Peter Barker’s first post on this (months ago now!), my view changed and I think his analysis is correct. The DARs in question are unusually clear. In turn, I believe the DWP’s response to chrisb is also correct.

Peter B has posted on this many times, in a number of contexts (e.g. the effect on non-dep changes caused by awards of Attendance Allowance etc). His analysis has always been supported by the wording of the DARs at issue. Unfortunately, searching for the posts has been a nightmare – perhaps someone else will have better luck!

As an aside, most LAs I’ve recently(ish) worked at/with make the change from the following Monday. This fits in with the current poll position. But, I think this is one of those cases where the minority are correct.

Regards

[emmadring]

So if I’ve got this right:

DAR 7(2)(i) provides that where a claimant becomes entitled to a ‘relevant benefit’ (IS, JSA etc), the change takes effect from the date on which the entitlement arises.

HB Reg 79(1) provides that such a change of circumstances takes effect the monday following the change.

They are contradicting and cannot be reconciled.

I repeat my post in this thread:

https://hbinfo.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7276

which concerned the doctrine of implied repeal. The most recent of two conflicting provisions of equal status (as these are, both being SIs) takes precedence as it is assumed that it repeals the earlier provision. The later provision only repeals the earlier to the extent that the two are inconsistent. So HB Reg 79 is in my opinion the correct reg to follow in this situation, as it came into force more recently than DAR 8(14).

[Anonymous]

I have commented on the other thread about the timing of the Pension Credit rules, but this is different.

I think the chronological sequence of the provisions is more complicated than this. The 2006 Regs do not change anything, they just re-number the existing Regs with no substantive alteration. Reg 79(1) is really just Reg 68(1) in new clothes.

Moreover, D&A Reg 8(2) has always imported Reg 79 (68 as was) into the supersession rules ever since July 2001, whereas the addition of Reg 8(14) in October 2003 marked a substantive change from that time.

So I think I would argue that it is Reg 7(2)(i) and 8(14) that are the more recent provisions. The 2006 consolidation exercise was not intended to revoke the effect of those Regs and I don’t think the 2006 Regs should be treated as the later provisions in this context.

[emmadring]

Peter

I can see where you’re coming from here. However, I don’t agree! In my opinion the 2006 Regs are the ones to follow. Although as you state their introduction was a re-numbering and consolidation exercise, I think it could also be argued that Parliament was happy with the regs as they appear in the 2006 incarnation. There was the opportunity to substantively alter the regs at that point, but the opportunity was not taken. To me that indicates that the regs as they stand in 2006 reflect the intentions of Parliament.

However, I doubt if Parliament ‘intended’ either to revoke DA Reg 7(2)(i)/8(14) or to assert their primacy over the 2006 regs. I think probably the overlap hasn’t been noticed. But that’s why it is ‘implied’ repeal – because the view is that [i:ad4b116a7b]had[/i:ad4b116a7b] Parliament realised there was a conflict it would have legislated to resolve it. The doctrine assumes that the conflict has been noticed and the more recent provision is implied to be Parliament’s response to the conflicting provisions.

You can definitely argue it either way, so unless I have managed to persuade you (!) we will have to agree to disagree on this one!

[Author]

Posts