Relevant Benefit

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #38738
    churdle
    Participant

    CTB case that is at an appeal stage.

    CTB claimed on 12/5/11 with a backdate request to 1/11/10 – the issue that is subject to appeal.

    However, ESA(IR) claimed on 1/6/11 and paid from 16/2/11. Can CTB be paid from 16/2/11 without a backdate decision? This would lapse the appeal as a fresh decision will have been made. What reg would allow this?

    This case seems the opposite of CTB reg 69(5).

    :~

    #109448
    Kay_Tade
    Participant

    Based on the circumstances described, yes, CTB can be paid from 16/02/2011[The 1 month condtion’s satisfied]. However, I Don’t see how this lapses the appeal as the backdate request is for a date further back, 01/11/10. :~

    #109449
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I agree you can pay from Monday after 16/02/11.

    This would lapse the appeal, but if the claimant is likely to persist with the backdating request to 01/11/10 it might be best to hold off revising for now, as per A15/2007.

    #109475
    churdle
    Participant

    CTB reg 69(5) states that a claim for CTB is made within one month of the date of claim to ESA. Our customer has made a claim for CTB BEFORE she made her claim to ESA so I dont see how 69(5) can apply.

    If it does please explain how?

    If reg 69(5) does not apply and you still think I can pay CTB from 16/2/11 please can you explain how and quote the approiate reg as Im still baffled? :~

    #109476
    Kevin D
    Participant

    I agree with your analysis of CTBR 69(5) Chris. Based on the info given so far, I think you’re stuck with a backdate decision of the “continuous good cause” variety.

    #109492
    Kay_Tade
    Participant

    [quote=Kay_Tade]Based on the circumstances described, yes, CTB can be paid from 16/02/2011[The 1 month condtion’s satisfied][/quote] :O Missed that, thought claim was around about the same time and not after CTB claim. Agree it’s a “good cause” requirement to take it back to February using the ESA award. So that, if you think there is good cause, would lapse the appeal. If not then have to do a sub.

    #109495
    churdle
    Participant

    Thanks everyone, think I got it clear in my mind now. Good cause it is and a submission.

    #109505
    Anonymous
    Guest

    So if the claimant had claimed a month or so later he wouldn’t need to show good cause?

    Was the authority notified of the ESA award before 01/07/11? If so, maybe you should have strongly suggested that the claimant make another claim by 01/07/11 (ie within one month of 01/06/11) because the earlier claim was made too early. Good luck explaining that to your claimant – “we can’t pay you from February because you claimed in May which was too late/early, but if you claim again in June we can automatically go back to February…”

    I thought the “within one month” phrase had been debated on these boards before, and general consensus was that the one month could go either way. But the only thread I found suggesting this approach was this one:

    Reverse start dates question

    The approach suggested there involves quite a generous reading of the legislation, but to me that approach is the only one that makes sense since the more literal reading would penalise claimants for claimint too early, which kinda goes against the whole requirement to make a claim in the first place.

    Claim dates are confusing enough – I say let the one month swing either way.

    #109506
    Anonymous
    Guest

    The other approach would be to investigate why ESA was backdated to 16/02/11:

    Either good casue was shown from 16/02/11-01/06/11 which surely applies to HB as well,
    or an intention to claim was registered on 16/02/11 and maybe this was also an intention to claim HB/CTB?

    #109507
    Kevin D
    Participant

    Hi Michael. Yes, you’re right – it has been debated before (in a different thread that I have no idea how to find).

    The difficulty is that the bit about claiming within one month is qualified. If that was all it said, no problem. HBR 83(5)(a); tweaked for ease of reference & bold/caps is my emphasis:

    “…in a case where an award of {a passporting beenfit} has been made to the claimant or his partner [b]AND[/b] the claim for housing benefit is made within one month of the date on which the claim for that {passporting benefit} was received….”

    In Christopher’s case, the HB/CTB claim was made on 12th May 2011 and, at that point in time, no award of a passporting benefit had been made (the word is “has”, past tense). Therefore, (a) cannot apply.

    However, I would agree that it may be worth trying to latch onto something else that could legitimately count as a claim within the month from 1st June onwards and then getting the May claim withdrawn.

    As an aside, this just serves as yet another example of rubbish legislation that could easily be simplified. I might have mentioned this before about claim/start dates… :O

    #109512
    Kay_Tade
    Participant

    Hi Michael/Kevin

    I think the words, “has”[passported benefit claim] and “was”[date passported claimwas received], that decided for me that it can only mean a passported benefit claim was made first. Yes, it would be nice to go down the “either way” route but can’t see how.

    #109513
    liffe
    Participant

    Can it not be treated as an advance claim if was not already processed by the time the ESA award was decided in June? If not why not just pay the backdated period and revise the decision thereby lapsing the appeal and consider the remainder of the good cause.

    Personaly I am of a mind to consider “within” to mean “before the end of” thereby allowing for the claim date to be 16/2/11 :~

    #109515
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I don’t think the use of the words “has” and “was” is relevant. If you read the reg at the time you are about to make the decision, both claims would have been made in the past (you can’t make a decision until you have received the claim). The words “has” and “was” only suggest that the events took place prior to the decision being made – they do not impute any order on the two claims.

    So the only question is whether “within” can apply backwards as well as forwards.

    #109518
    Kay_Tade
    Participant

    I guess we could go “backwards” and “forwards” all day on the issue and still not make a dent in sensiblity “within” the regs.

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.