Terms & Conditions

[Vix]

Hi, can I have anyone’s opinion on this …

I have been helping the auditors with our subsidy claim for 2005/06 and have been testing cell 52 – Rent Officer Referrals which is an area of concern for our authority.

Regs state we have 3 days after expiry of last referral or as soon as practicable. The auditors are classing anything over 3 days as an error in their report but allowing it for subsidy if the ROR was done before 31st May 2006.

Obviously we would like to dispute this as we’re not that fast, but does anyone have an opinion on how many days would be practicable?

Many thanks

[Anonymous]

I can see where they are coming from, but in the context of a subsidy inspection I don’t think that’s the right approach.

The point about the subsidy rules is that you are penalised for making benefit expenditure without an RO valuation in cases where one is required. Therefore, I think you are only in error for subsidy purposes if you put the claim into payment without referring to the RO. Obviously, there must be tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of cases each year where the Council takes a little bit longer than 3 days to refer to the RO, but still does so a.s.a.r.p. As long as a formal benefit decision is not made before the valuation is obtained, there is no subsidy-related “error” in such cases.

And as you say, even then the DWP takes the view that any missed referrals can be made good at any time up to the deadline for submitting the first pre-audit cut of your subsidy claim.

[b:fd1b40575a]EDIT[/b:fd1b40575a] Ah, hang on I see what you mean. These cases are already in payment aren’t they? So you cannot avoid making payments after the expiry of the RO valuation sometimes. I think three days is probably the only consistant yard stick they can use in that case

[Vix]

Thanks Peter

the errors were mainly cases being referred after 52 weeks so the claim was already in pay, would you qualify those as errors?

[seanosul]

My query with Auditors – (Based on DWP / Audit Commission Certification Instructions)

From: Sean O’Sullivan
Sent: 03 August 2006 12:36
To: Auditor
Subject: RE: Rent Service Referrals

Thanks. Brilliant news.

—–Original Message—–
From: Auditor
Sent: 03 August 2006 12:35
To: Sean O’Sullivan
Subject: RE: Rent Service Referrals

Yes that’s right.

Thanks
——————————————————————————–

From: Sean O’Sullivan
Sent: 03 August 2006 12:33
To: Auditor
Subject: RE: Rent Service Referrals

That is 31 December then isnt it as the claim is not complete until it is audited.

—–Original Message—–
From: Auditor
Sent: 03 August 2006 12:31
To: Sean O’Sullivan
Subject: RE: Rent Service Referrals

Hi Sean

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this one. Our interpretation is that it is the date of claim completion that counts.

Let me know if you need any further info.

Thanks

——————————————————————————–

From: Sean O’Sullivan
Sent: 24 July 2006 10:30
To: Auditor
Subject: RE: Rent Service Referrals

Have you been able to form any opinion about the contradictions in the Audit instructions?

Thanks

—–Original Message—–
From: Sean O’Sullivan
Sent: 07 July 2006 14:07
To:Auditor
Subject: RE: Rent Service Referrals

Hi,

Just seeking your opinion on this.

I have read through the instructions and the Audit Commission have contradicted themselves somewhat with regard to Rent Service referrals. I have copied the relevant paragraphs below. Would I be right to say that the subsidy order quoted in paragraph 54 overrides the advice it is the date of claim completion that counts (para 55) or the DWP advice on para 56 that it is 31 May?

54. The Order sits uncomfortably with the requirement in the Regulations to refer cases

within three working days or as soon as practicable thereafter because, provided a referral is

made by the time the authority certified claim is submitted, full rate subsidy is payable

regardless of any unreasonable delay making the referral or the fact that had a determination

been secured in a timely way, less benefit and/or subsidy may have been payable. The

department has stated that other controls provide assurance that rent officer referrals are

made and made on time and that, for subsidy purposes, greater emphasis is to be placed on

an authority having made a referral than on it receiving and processing a rent officer

determination.

55. DWP accepts that the treatment of rent officer referral cases for subsidy purposes is

complicated and the analysis of expenditure required by the form provides a limited audit trail.

Auditors are expected to agree the cells entries to subsidy reports and to test a sample of

cases to ensure these have been analysed as required by the form in accordance with

paragraphs 56 and 57 below, drawing any uncertainty or disagreement with the authority to

DWP’s attention in a qualification letter. For the avoidance of doubt, auditors are expected to

confirm the position at the date an authority completes it claim. Auditors are not expected,

either this year or next, to revisit cases to confirm that determinations were subsequently

received and actioned.

56. DWP has agreed the following approach:

(a) auditors do not need to be concerned that a referral was made in a timely way in

accordance with the Regulations. For the avoidance of doubt, this means, for

example, that claims received in April 2005 or cases where the previous

determination was 52 weeks or more old in April 2005, can be included for full rate

subsidy provided a referral to the rent officer is made by 31 May 2006. Clearly

DWP hopes that such cases will be exceptional and that referrals will be being

made on a timely basis but for subsidy purposes only 31 May 2006 is critical;

[Vix]

so basically as long as the ROR is made before the subsidy is claimed we’ll be fine?

Does the referral also cover the period between the expiry of the last ROR and the referral of the next one? Or do we loose subsidy on that?

[seanosul]

That has always been the case, the DWP came up with the idea that the referal had to be done before 31 May – when the claim form is submitted(supposedly based on simplification) however the actual claim form is submitted when audited – so the advice I sought from auditors was to clarify the rather inconsistent advice given to them by the DWP

[Kevin D]

Just to show what can happen if an LA fails to make appropriate referals to the R/O, take a look at [b:f7beef21f3]R(oao LB Lambeth) v Sec of State for the DWP (2005)[/b:f7beef21f3]:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/637.html

Regards

[seanosul]

Very useful warning to all!

[Vix]

thanks for your help guys, i’ll pass the information on.

vicky

[Author]

Posts