Terms & Conditions

[JamesPickering]

Can anyone please tell me the reg(s) that state when the claim is from someone receiving a passported benefit we do not have to ask for any details regarding the claimant or partners other income or capital (only rent etc where appropriate).

Any help much appreciated,

James

[jmembery]

I won’t go through the whole list as there are loads of references, but in summery.

Section 136(1) of the acts defines that the income and capital of a partner is to be treated as the income and capital of the claimant.

Then the schedules specify that the income and capital of a claimant on IS or JSA (IB) etc are disregarded.

EG (In the HB Regs 2006 for example)
Income other than earnings is covered by Schedule 5 para 4
“Where the claimant is on Income Support or an Income-Based Jobseekers Allowance the whole of his income.”

[JamesPickering]

Thanks for that, however, the reason I ask is because we currently keep income and capital records for Passported benefit claims 😳 and need to stop.

The problem lies with our Fraud Manager as she is saying she likes the extra information as it helps with their investigations and also that we shouldn’t trust the information held by the PS, CIS etc.

Now I know that it is our decision how we do things but I want something to beat her around the head with that confirms it is the correct thing to do :evil:.

Any further assistance in any form much appreciated.

James

[Kevin D]

Spinning it around to the front end, HBR 86 only requires that LAs have sufficient info & evidence in order to make a decision. In a passported case, it follows that all other income / cap is not needed in order to make a decision.

In fact, if such info is requested, it is conceivable that any subsequent o/p *could* end up being official error if the LA simply ignores it on the grounds that a passported benefit was in payment. There are several CDs confirming LAs are under no duty to check whether a passported benefit has been awarded correctly; but if a clmt declared work at, say, £500 per week and it was ignored, I think it would be very difficult for the LA to defend such a substantial oversight.

So, there are advantages to NOT asking for the info.

Regards

[peterdelamothe]

“The problem lies with our Fraud Manager as she is saying she likes the extra information as it helps with their investigations and also that we shouldn’t trust the information held by the PS, CIS etc”.

Well, she has a point, looking at some of the rubbish turning up under CMS. On the other hand, such a policy is hardly in tune with the idea that customers make one claim at one place and then the info is passed around internally amongst the agencies.

As colleagues have pointed out, you do not have to ask for the info again but you can, provided it is “reasonably required”. I would say it is not reasonable to ask for the info again in EVERY case but it is possible in some cases, either on individual or a test selection.

[JamesPickering]

With regard to the Fraud managers concerns about the stuff coming off CIS I have to agree based on the look of some very dodgy information flying about.

My problem is that we are currently spending time writing for stuff like Tax Credit award letters and then spending time updating the figures on our system with the “information only” box ticked.

I am concerns are that we are making the claiming process far more complicated than it should be and also that we are holding information on the claim that is not appropriate and therefore could we be in breach of Data Protaction rules 🙁 .

So Peter if you have anything to back up your “reasonably required” statement I would love to see it for backing uop my argument purposes 😀

[Kevin D]

To save Peter the trouble…. 🙂

[quote:8e327d4449]”….[b:8e327d4449]as may reasonably be required[/b:8e327d4449]…” + “…in order to determine that person´s entitlement….”[/quote:8e327d4449].

The above is a direct lift from HBR 86(1) – covers both the requirement and the purpose.

new.hbinfo.org.com/menu2/hbregs06/086_06.shtml

Regards

[Anonymous]

There are several issues here, aren’t there?

When we talk about “passported” claims, most of us understand that to mean people who successfully claim IS, JSA(ib) (or Guarantee Credit, but that’s not part of the JC+ liaison system). For those claimants, if the Council is satisfied that the claimant is actually getting the benefit in question, there is generally no need to seek further information about income and capital and it is normally unnecessary (and counter to the data protection principles) to hold such information. The legal references that others have provided above will apply.

Occasionally, the Council will stumble across information that makes it look as if the claimant perhaps should not be getting IS/JSA(ib). While it will primarily be for the DWP to decide how significant that is, there will be cooperation with the Council and in such cases the Council will to some extent get involved with looking behind the IS/JSA(ib) award.

Exceptionally, it will not be possible to cooperate with DWP: typically, this will be where the suspected fraud dates back to a period earlier than DWP traditionally can be arsed to investigate. In such rare cases, it is legitimate for the Council to take its own view about whether the claimant should have been getting IS/JSA(ib). The case of Hamilton and South Ribble Council is the template.

Then there are the cases where the claimant is not entitled to IS/JSA(ib) in the first place, but the DWP still provides some means testing information in the customer wotsit CIS thingummy, er, you know. As I understand it, this is what jpickering is most concerned about: you are worried that it is not reliable information. DWP is most interested in establishing whether the claimant is entitled to one of their JC+ “primary benefits” – IS, JSA, IB. If they claim those benefits but find they are not entitled, claimants can still use JC+ as a handy one-stop shop for claiming HB and CTB: but the Council might not like the look of the financial information sent over. Is this the problem, jpickering?

If so, I don’t know the answer. There is no legal constraint that prevents you from verifying information for yourself in every case, unless a claimant objects on the grounds that it is not reasonable to do so. But it is a depressing thought that a system that is supposed to make life easier for claimants and decision makers ends up doing the opposite. Double verification flies in the face of the policy intention.

Is the problem with the way information is presented in the available fields – a software issue? Or is it that the figures are simply wrong?

[peterdelamothe]

Much obliged Kevin.

For the standard reasonableness test, have a look at the often quoted decision:

ASSOCIATED PROVINCIAL PICTURE HOUSES, LIMITED v. WEDNESBURY CORPORATION.

1947 Nov. 7, 10.

http://www.justis.com/titles/iclr_s4821028.html

It makes interesting reading if you have not read it before. Wednesdbury Corp was a form of LA of the time and was trying to bar children under 15 from going to cinemas on a Sunday.

[JamesPickering]

Kevin,

The problems relate back to old data matching guidance wihich the Authority followed and kept records of all income and data regardless of whether standard or passported. I should also mentioned that we queried this with them last week and they originally confirmed that we should keep these records for all cases ❗ they have however since revised their decision and informed us correctly that we do not need any other income details for passported claims 😀 .

I am all in favour of taking the JC+ and PS word for any passported benefit awards and therefore speeding up our processing times and making claiming easier. If the customer then reports a change of circumstances i.e. they have started work we would then take the appropriate action.

With regard to the system information we have SX3 which allows you to input income details onto a passported benefit claim with an “Information Only” tick which basically means it is for reference only. My problem with it is the time spent collating and inputting the information onto the system for very little gain in most cases.

My concern and the concern of the Fraud Manager as you rightly put it is that the information may not be correct and therefore the HB/CTB will not be correct either.

I feel the general consensus seems to be to go with the JC+ & PS information but to make enquirys into oncome etc if we have any doubts over their entitlement to the passported benefit. This LA has been doing this for a very long time and we all know that everyone hates change!

[jmembery]

I am not certain that concerns over JC+ decision making is a valid reason to hold additional information on a claimant’s income.

How do you know, for example, that an employer has calculated wages correctly for a standard claimant? How do you know that the banks have credited all the capital to a claimants account correctly? How do you know a Housing association have calculated a rent correctly? (Given the number of times HAs in our area have had to refund their tenants for incorrectly calculated service charges, perhaps you dont)

[Anonymous]

I would strongly agree with Jeff on this one.
To (try and) paraphrase data protection are we not allowed only to keep the info we need to assess.
If IS / JSA(IB) / or PGC is in payment, and this has been confirmed by the DWP (in one guise or another), do we need anything else?
My take on this is a loud and resounding “no”! :26:
Surely only when we have reason to believe that this info (from the DWP) is wrong then it is reasonable to ask further questions, and store that information on our database?
Otherwise, are we not leaving ourselves open? 😕 8)

[Kevin D]

Making no particular point – just to point out that there is a CD which may have relevance (at least in part) to this thread:

new.hbinfo.org.com/menu2a/cdoverpayments/ch_1908_2003.doc

Regards

[peterdelamothe]

Playing devils advocate. JM said

“Surely only when we have reason to believe that this info (from the DWP) is wrong” …

From the recent Work and Pensions Select Committee

“But, as we conclude in this report, over the last two years much has been asked of Jobcentre Plus as the DWP’s efficiency programme overlaps with substantial organisational change. As a result the Agency is now faced with a “shed-load of difficulties”, in the words of the Secretary of State. We have received evidence that change planning has been poor, with management across the country struggling trying to keep up with, and solve problems caused by, the myriad of IT, staffing, process, telephony and financial programmes which are all underway at the same time.

One manifestation of these problems took place in summer 2005 in many of the Contact Centres for those claiming benefits. Poor staffing planning and IT problems contributed to truly appalling service levels – the customer service measure dropped to 26.8% in one Contact Centre group against a target of 81%. Advice organisations presented a series of cases to the Committee where people were left calling again and again, sometimes for weeks, to make a benefit claim. In some areas a new system for applying for Crisis Loans was being trialled at the same time. This meant, Citizens Advice told us, that some people already let down by Contact Centres were waiting for up to three hours outside phone boxes for Crisis Loan decisions. Jobcentre Plus management responded to these problems, and the moment of acute crisis has passed. However, question marks remain about the ‘contingency measures’ which are still being used in some Contact Centres, and the robustness of the underlying processing system, the Customer Management System.

Worryingly, by the admission of the Permanent Secretary, the programme has adversely impacted on the levels of official error. The Autumn Performance Report refers to the aim of “halting the slide” in Income Support accuracy. We look forward to seeing the results of the action taken by Jobcentre Plus to address this problem.

Too much has been done too quickly, the planning and IT processes were not up to the job, and service levels have suffered. One of the tests of the Gershon programme is that service quality should not deteriorate as a result of the efficiency programme. As far as Jobcentre Plus is concerned, particularly in the summer of 2005 it failed that test, and failed its customers and staff”.

[jmembery]

There have also been quite a few BFI reports that have been critical of LAs Benefits Sections.

Perhaps landlords should demand details of a claimants income, capital etc so they can check if we have worked out HB correctly.

[Author]

Posts