REG 71

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #20776
    Trevor Kenward
    Participant

    Can I have any views on how other authorities deal with claims where the HB claimant is the partner of the IS claimant or vice versa.
    We are having administrative problems with IS/JSA(IB) cessation notices where the HB is not in the HB claimants name.The regulations appear only to give the authority power to decide where the couple cannot decide. What happens in a situation whereby the couple continually change their HB from one to the other? :15::15::15:

    #3456
    Mark
    Participant

    Am I missing something? What sort of administrative problems are you talking about? Why does it matter which member of the couple is the HB or IS/JSA(IB) claimant?

    #3457
    Trevor Kenward
    Participant

    Mark, thanks for your input.
    Perhaps I should have explained the matter better, sorry. My authority uses a Document Image Processing System so all end of entitlement IS/JSA notifications are electronically received direct from the local DWP office and upon their receipt claims are suspended prior to being sent to the asessment teams to action . If the HB claim for instance is in the name of Smith and the IS/JSA in the name of Jones it can cause a problem and an otherwise avoidable overpayment can occur.
    In the scenario where the HB claimant is not the IS/JSA claimmant can the Authority insist that they claim both benefits in the same name?
    If not is the HB claimant(i.e the one not cliaming as IS/JSA) treated as if being in receipt of IS/JSA or treated as non-IS and if so what is the partners income classed as.
    I hope this explains the position better.Thanks:15:

    #3458
    Anonymous
    Guest

    We too have an imaging system so I understand your problem. It seems to me that what we call our “indexers” (the people who look at the documents immediately after scanning) at your authority are doing a name search on your datebase first – hence the problem. We get round this by doing an address search first and then linking the surnames of either the claimant or partner.

    Hope this helps.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.