Terms & Conditions

[Anonymous]

If you recalculate a claim and create a retrospective period of NIL entitlement but current entitlement continues what do you all do?

Do you cancel the claim from the end of that period and send a new claim form? I’m stuck on the principle that if there is NIL entitlement a claim ceases to exist but it doesn’t seem appropriate in this set of circumstances

[seanosul]

You are correct in that a new claim form is required and not following this could be very costly – as my current authority is discovering.

[David]

The claimant should be no worse off in financial terms because u/e will reduce the overpayment, & provided they return claim form promptly. I suppose you could ring customer to explain situation enabling him to establish claim date for new claim.

[Kevin D]

In my view, Sean is correct. This issue has been addressed in a number of earlier threads. These, in particular, should be of interest:

new.hbinfo.org.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7904
new.hbinfo.org.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6784
new.hbinfo.org.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6720
new.hbinfo.org.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4151

Regards

Possible search keys: “gap and entitlement”, “269”, “nil and entitlement and period”.

[Anonymous]

If you want to get really technical, there must have been a change of circumstances that led to a revison or supersession leading to a decision that the person is not entitled. There must also have been a corresponding outcome overpayment decision (and a recoverability decision

All decisions made after the effective date of the revison or supersession that resulted in nil entitlemeent must also be validly revised or superseded (and there must be corresponding outcome overpayment decisions linked to them.)

Any sum that would have been determined to be properly payable must be offset against any of the overpayments determined to be recoverable. This of couse means that the sums attributable to what you had until recently decided was actual entitlement outside of the nil entilement period could be offset (provided those overpayments are recoverable) and so you will be left with the overpayment for the period of nil entitlement. You ought to of course have made a recoverability decision regarding that amount.

As for ongoing entitlement from the present, in this situation, all I would do(if I went back to assessing ) is get the claimant to sign a statement to the effect that he still wants to claim. It is up to you to decide what documents you will accept as valid claims [see Reg 83(1) 2006Regs]

In practical terms, get the statement and then write up some coherent notes for your auditors. From other threads, I gather that the auditors will need chapter and verse of the law explained to them in those notes before they would accept what you have done

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the response but, with respect, you have all missed the point. It is not the case that HB has been [i:f77f6e21e0]cancelled [/i:f77f6e21e0]for a past period because of IS ending (I deliberately said recalculate). If this was so I would be in no doubt that clt would have to reclaim. In this scenario the NIL entitlement is literally that, an excess income figure caused by a re-assessment following HBMS match. There is no underlying entitlement because this is a net overpayment.

Any clues?

[aosulliv]

The claim has ended at the point nil entitlement has commenced.

No benefit payable unless there is an application form

[Kevin D]

Chris:

I appreciate the distinction being drawn, but once entitlement is “nil” (whether through termination, [u:70ba93f23c]or[/u:70ba93f23c] supersession), a new claim is needed.

From [b:70ba93f23c]para 1 of CH/0269/2006[/b:70ba93f23c]:

[quote:70ba93f23c]”….the local authority (the respondents) had no power to review or supersede any “nil” decision.”[/quote:70ba93f23c]

Regards

[Anonymous]

Kevin is right, and it is in the absence of the new claim that you deduct the so called underlying entitlement so you end up with the correct calculation for the period of actual nil entitlement

[Anonymous]

(Light dawning) So what you’re saying is that once a period of NIL entitlement pops up retrospectively I should cancel the claim from now, invite a new claim and offset overpayment by underlying entitlement. I see…. (said the blind man)

Happy Christmas!

[Anonymous]

The quote from CH/269/06 should not be taken out of context. The Commissioner said earlier:-

“the computer records at document 13 show that “based on [the claimant’s] income she did not qualify for any benefit from 28 October 2002 however the claim was still live”. The closing remarks are entirely contrary to paragraph 2 of schedule 7 to the Child Support Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 – if a claimant does not qualify for the benefit,
or ceases to qualify for the benefit, then the claim is disallowed. It is not susceptible to being revived by a change in circumstances. To put it more plainly the “nil” decision could not be superseded and the claimant in those circumstances had to elect whether to make a further claim for benefit.”

[Kevin D]

David S: Hope you don’t take this the wrong way, but I’m not sure of the point being made. In my view at least, the extract you quote is entirely consistent with the analysis suggesting that a new claim is needed once a period of nil entitlement has been identified.

Or, is there something that’s been overlooked? Cos, there are plenty of LAs who will be very very happy if a different conclusion can (reasonably) be reached.

Regards

[Anonymous]

Kevin

Sorry, I should have said that my point is that the Commissioner was referring to paragraph 2 of schedule 7 to the Child Support Pensions and Social Security Act 2000. This provides that if a claim is refused the person has to make a further claim in respect of a change of circumstances since the decisosn was made – ie the decision can’t be revised or superseded on these grounds. It does not mean that the decision can’t be revised, or superseded on different grounds. Sorry if it was unecessary to point this out.

[Author]

Posts