Terms & Conditions

[Anonymous]

The above reg stats: –

‘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.’

Does this reg mean that the LA can only request pay detail back over for a maximum period of 52wks?

However, what would happen if the LA finds out that the claimant had a change in there earnings 18mths ago, can we request the details and reassess the claim? If we can’t this seems to go against the DWP guidance I had previously stating an overpayment should be created from the date of change and then the LA should consider whether to recover.

It also would make the fraud section redundant if you can only go back a max of 52wks. I only ask this because our benefits section have brought it up and I think they are being to general about the reg.

All opinions are grately appreciated.

[Kevin D]

I don’t read it that way.

The 52 weeks simply refers to the period over which [u:9a544d4155]earnings[/u:9a544d4155] can be assessed of any one time – not the period of HB/CTB [u:9a544d4155]award[/u:9a544d4155].

For example, if a clmt provided 18 months of earnings, you couldn’t assess an average over the whole 18 month period. The 18 month period would need to be broken down into smaller periods, so that no single smaller period was more than 52 weeks (12 mths for self-employed). So, HB/CTB could still be reassessed over 18 months, but you’d just have different assessment periods for the income (e.g. first 6 mths based on the earnings for that 6 months; the next 12 months/52 wks based on the earnings for that 12mth/52 week period).

Hope the above helps.

[peterdelamothe]

Alll this regulation is trying to do is assist where the customer has variable earning; perhaps they work on commission only or piece work etc. This reg is a mechanism to allow the LA to average out such changes rather than assess the claim for a week at a time.

I really do not think its intention was “where a fraudster makes a false claim more than 52 weeks ago and it is not discovered within that period, they can stick two fingers up at the LA Investigations team ….”

However, you WILL find such a regulation – its called reg 104!

[Anonymous]

I agree with your opinions but the ammunition I have when I argue my case the better.

So keep your comments coming.

[Hilly]

Don’t really see that there is an argument.

For example if you had a customer that worked 3 days one week and 4 the next you should average his earnings over an even number of weeks so it is an accurate average. Whereas we would normally average weekly earnings over 5 weeks.

For most self employed cases you would average the earnings over 52 weeks as you would calculate a weekly figure from their accounts.

This doesn’t affect their responsibility to advise you of changes or how long ago they may have failed to declare any earnings.

8)

[Kevin D]

Giving myself a short break, so….

Based on the last post, I’m guessing that some bright spark is trying to suggest HBR 29 prevent LAs taking a CofC back more than 52 weeks, or some such equivalent technical argument.

Howabout this (summarised):

[quote:6776547b3a]HBR 29 merely governs “[b:6776547b3a]Average weekly earnings of employed earners[/b:6776547b3a]”. The effect of para 3 is only to limit the maximum period over which any single calculation of average earnings can be assessed. It does not preclude another calculation being made in respect of a further period. In addition, HBR 29 does not govern the effective date of a change of circumstances. “[b:6776547b3a]The date on which change of circumstances is to take effect[/b:6776547b3a]” is governed separately by HBR 79. Para 1 provides, subject to exceptions, that a change takes effect from the Monday after the date on which the change actually occurs.

HBRs 29 and 79 have separate and distinct functions.

Accordingly, the LA submits that HBR 29 does not have the effect contended by the claimant.[/quote:6776547b3a]

If you like the above, feel free to copy and paste. If you don’t like, feel free to flame me accordingly….. If you improve on it, feel free to share….. 🙂

Regards

[Anonymous]

Thanks Kevin. The query actually came from our benefits section. I work for the Client.

[Author]

Posts