Terms & Conditions

[pearly queen]

self employed audited accounts received in the office 30th October 2006
Audited and Certified by the accountant early August 2006 for accounts ending 31/3/06
what date should change to the income be applied from ( not a beneficial change) on the claim

[Anonymous]

There is no provision for this in the D&A Regs. There hasn’t been a clear change of circumstance – it’s not as if the claimant said to himself one day “I think I’ll start earning a few quid a week more today”. The only date you can hang it on really is the completely arbitrary intervention date. You have to go through some logical contortions to justify it by reference to the D&A Regs. Something like this:

“There has been a change of circumstance today, in that the activity upon which we based our estimate of your earnings took place such a long time ago that we can no longer rely on it, so we have decided to start using some more recent figures. That was not the case yesterday – until yesterday we were quite happy with our previous estimate. So there has been a change of circumstance today and there will be a superseding decision with effect from next Monday”.

In the absence of a ground for supersession in Reg 7 on the specific ground of a regular intervention to update an old income estimate, the above is the best you can do.

I once suggested the wording of a new paragraph for Reg 7 on here, but you all took the p!ss so I won’t do it again.

[Anonymous]

Well, I remember liking your suggested new paragraph if it make you feel any better. 🙂

However, that was in my youthful days where I thought the DWP might actually care less about making the HB regs logical. Now I realise that we’ll probably be stuck with these sort of problems until some government comes along in the future and reintroduces benefit periods. 🙄

[assert no no]

I get the impression pearly queen that nobody can suggest an answer to this query ?

[Anonymous]

Peter’s answer is as good as it gets in this situation.

[assert no no]

andy

I think we are waiting for Peter to put it in plain english…

😆

[Anonymous]

Try this earlier thread for other suggestions:

https://hbinfo.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8039&highlight=selfemployed

[JACKAL]

Hi,

Can someone please help.

My inital training (back in 2001) for S/E was very thorough and was always told in order for us to assess claims using accounts (without supporting evidence), they had to be audited.

It was explained to me (then) un – audited accounts are the same as a customer completing a S/E pro former (or completing 1 themselves using a software on their computer). In which case, depending on the borough, you ask for a “sample of 3 months”.

I am now told (in a differnet LA) that we can accept un – audited accounts (especially if customer signs it) and provided you are happy with what is declared not ask for proofs.

Also told there are no accounts physically audited???? I am pretty sure I have come across some in the past and can’t seem to understand if I a new ruling has been passed.

Any help and clarification would be great.

Thanks

[Anonymous]

There’s no Reg that says you HAVE to have audited accounts just as there’s no Reg that says you HAVE to have payslips to assess a claim. As long as you are satisfied you have enough evidence to pay then go ahead. 🙂

[Kevin D]

I completely agree with Martin. Indeed, see [b]R(H ) 1/09[/b] for what happened when a LA firstly demanded accounts that were not in existence from a clmt and secondly, when the accounts were not forthcoming, ended the clmt’s entitlement. The (then) deputy Cmmr was mightily unimpressed.

The only rules on info / evidence are contained in HBR 83 (for claims) and HBR 86 for further info / evidence. Even DARs 11 / 13 / 14 are effectively in conjunction with HBR 86. Unfortunately, some LAs seem to make it up as they go along and it isn’t helped by DWP guidance / policies that seem to conveniently ignore the actual provisions of the law relating to benefits.

[JACKAL]

Hi guys,

I may have not asked the question right, sorry.

My understanding was that audited, un-audited, self proforma can be accepted (or something from the customer showing their income), BUT if you were presented audited accounts, you did not need to ask for proofs (as they have been certified).

I am always suspicious of S/E claims and always ask for proofs when presented with accounts other than audited ones.

I just needed clarity if this is correct.

Thanks

[peterdelamothe]

The only real difference is that an acountant has dealt with the accounts. This can cost quite a lot so it is bizarre to expect or insist on them because we are dealing with people on low incomes!

What is more accurate? Probably on balance accounts provided by the claimant. Audited accounts are often presented in certain ways that reflect audit protocol and so on. Most assets do not have to be revalued for instance and may include all sorts of “allowances”. I have often know an accountant provide two sets of accounts – one for the Revenue and one for “benefit claims”. Both will be “audited”.

Asking for proof is fine – provided you know exactly what you are looking for. Otherwise it just becomes a pointless waste of everyone’s time.

[JACKAL]

Thanks for the reply guys.

Feel somewhat re-assured.

[John Boxall]

Quite a few of the professionally prepared accounts that i have seen for self employed claimants are prepared without audit

Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery. The blossom is blighted, the leaf is withered, the god of day goes down upon the dreary scene, and—and in short you are for ever floored.

Wilkins Micawber, Ch12 David Copperfield

[Author]

Posts