Trying to remember a CD…

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #38174
    Ozzie Bird
    Participant

    Hi
    Can anyone help me please. I’m sure I read a CD quite a while ago about how it’s not the LA’s repsonsibility to go sifting through evidence on the off chance that they’ll find some undeclared income. Does anyone else remember reading that and if so, what’s the CD ref?
    Many thanks
    Jenni

    #107565
    Ozzie Bird
    Participant

    Actually, I’ve just found it so thought I’d post it in case anyone else wants it.
    CH 69/2003, it’s a good one too.

    #107572
    Kevin D
    Participant

    CH/0069/2003 has subsequently been distinguished. For example, CH/0603/2004.

    In short, it depends on the facts and the following factors will determine whether a LA should have spotted something on a bank statement or equivalent document:

    – Why did the LA want to see the statement? Purely capital? Checking for income as well?

    – Does your LA have a policy / procedure that involves assessors being trained to look for “hidden” income? Was that procedure reasonably followed?

    – How much detail was showing on the statement? (in CH/69/2003, it was only a mini-statement).

    If the LA has overlooked an entry on a bank statement, it may or may not be an error – depends on all of the facts. However, this doesn’t necessarily result in the overpayment being irrecoverable. If the clmt didn’t disclose the income on the claim form, or misrepresented the income, it may well be open to argument the clmt contributed to the cause of the overpayment (Sier principles) which would leave any resultant o/p as being recoverable.

    There are plenty of CDs/UTDs where it has been held that the failure of a clmt to disclose a source of income on the claim form meant s/he contributed to the cause of the o/p, irrespective of the fact the same income appeared on a statement. In addition, there is the “realise” arm to consider.

    #107574
    Ozzie Bird
    Participant

    Well Kevin, that’s really spoiled my party now!!
    Actually it is as you described above, the private pension was not put on the original application form nor the subsequent 5 In-Year postal checks, so I will present the response in all possible cases, i.e. firstly that it is claimant error and my reasons why and then secondly if it looks like being official error then the claimant contributed to it by not declaring it each time so therefore it becomes claimant error and then thirdly if the TS find that it is official error, then the reasons why the error could have been realised by the claimant. Thanks for you help, dude.

    #107579
    Kevin D
    Participant

    [quote=Ozzie Bird]Well Kevin, that’s really spoiled my party now!! …snip… Thanks for you help, dude.[/quote]

    You’re welcome :).

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.