I’m sure this scenario has been covered before but cannot find it.
A change which should result in the end of entitlement is identified during the course of a fraud investigation. A subsequent change which meant entitlement would have existed again had a claim been made etc. was also identified.
Benefit was ended with effect from the first change (date ‘X’) and reinstated from the second change (date ‘Y’), despite the fact that there was no claim.
A recoverable overpayment was then calculated between dates X and Y 😡
The decision was then revisited and the award ended from date Y and a further recoverable OP calculated.
I suspect that the overpayment from date Y onwards is an official error with the original decision, in reality, being two decisions – A superseding decision ending the award and creating an overpayment to the “paid to date” and a new decision awarding benefit from date ‘Y’ with payments being made against the (then) existing OP. If this is the case the OP was made because an award was made in error without any input from the claimant?
Any thoughts? I know I’m probably missing something obvious but I had a heavy new year.
.
