Verefication of Capital

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
  • #22334

    VF guidance manual states:-

    15.8.i current or building society accounts – a slip showing outstanding balance is not acceptable. Statements, showing all credits and debits and o/s balance for a period of 2 months, are required……

    15.9 claimants should always be asked to provide evidence as specified in Framework. Exceptionally the claimant may not possess a current statement and the financial institution concerned might leby a charge for statements. In these circs confirmation of balance may be acceptable, as the claimant may not be in a financial position to pay for copy statement. Claimant must be asked when next statement is due and advised to forward the evidence at that time. Such cases should be followed up to ensure that the appropriate evidence is supplied.

    My question is do other authorities follow up cases and what action do they take if appropriate evidence is not supplied, especially when the claim has been put into pyt based on confirmation of balance?


    Ok, then.
    Yes, we do accept a printed slip from a “hole in the wall”.
    This is done on the specific understanding that the claimant will forward his/her statements at a later date. 😉

    If the statements are not forthcoming, we will sent a letter reminding and attempted to visit the claimant. If still no success, HB / CTB then cancelled as no proper evidence on which to award and overpayment pursued. 8)

    Kevin D

    Well, there is the LA standpoint. And there is the clmt standpoint.

    LA: Most LAs would take the view that if a clmt has failed to supply a piece of evidence for a claim, you can rely on the DARs to suspend & subsequently terminate a claim on the grounds that a question has arisen out of an award of benefit. If you accept current DWP guidance, there is no right of appeal either….

    Clmt: In my view, it is open for a clmt to argue as follows….

    “Sirs, HBR 86 allows LAs to ask for such info / evidence [etc] in order to make a decision on a claim. You have made a decision, therefore you had sufficient info / evidence at the time of making the decision – you don’t need anymore. Further, VF has no legal status. Next, there has been no change in my circumstances since making my claim, and therefore no substantive basis on which to supersede or revise your original decision. Also, I am only under a duty to inform you of changes in my circumstances – I am not under a duty to inform you they HAVE NOT changed. Next, there is no basis on which my claim could be suspended / terminated. The question you raised is not new – it was a question relating to my ORIGINAL claim, but by making a decision you have accepted you had all the info / evidence you needed. No new question has arisen SINCE the decision. Your action/[proposed action] is therefore Wednesbury unreasonable. Next, the DWP guidance on preventing an appeal in termination cases is wrong on 2 counts: 1) the legislation doesn’t support the DWP advice and/or in any case 2) it is in breach of Human Rights law.”

    If the DWP had constructed provisions allowing LAs to make “provisional” awards (not just Payment on Account for Rent Allowance cases), this scenario could be easily avoided AND it would enable LAs to get benefits into payment nice and quickly. And, as ever, until the DWP give VF some form of legal backing, LAs will always be in a difficult position in justifying some evidential requests. The law only allows LAs to require sufficient evidence in order to make a decision – no more, no less.

    As for the position on making DAR terminations non-appealable, irrespective of whether this is legally correct, I can’t for the life of me work out why the DWP would want such a provision. It’s bonkers.

    Er, not sure the above is quite what you would have been expecting…. 😯 No matter, you have one month in which to attempt to excercise your rights. If you have any. Which isn’t entirely clear any more…..



    Of course, VF is now dead and has, just yesterday, been replaced by “advice and guidance” by the DWP. So although the advice and guidence is the same as under VF, I really think LAs have even fewer arguments for being perscriptave about eveidence when VF was alive.


    Spooky this post, my authority has been looking at the issue of making ‘decisions’ on claims pending further evidence etc i.e. stuff needed to make the claim VF compliant.

    Without going into the complexities our basic conclusion is, that once you have made a decision, you have made a decision i.e. you can’t cancel on the basis of the missing bank statement because what has changed.

    A problem we have come up against is we then cancel the claim because not all the info supplied! If the information does then come back the claim is revised!

    Again we have challenged the perspective of this from the regulation point of view, once you have made the decision the Decision Making regs are quite clear on what basis you can revise.
    -Something has changed
    – Not aware of material fact
    – Made a mistake

    The viewpoint we are looking at establishing (believe to be correct) is that if you are VF compliant and accept this as the standard of evidence no payment (unless POA applies) should be made until the info is supplied. Not all supplied then claim is made ‘defective’ and appeal rights apply.

    Really you choices are then as the 3 above. Of course if the claimant comes forward with reason for not supplying the info earlier you can get round it this way.

    Ah well Fri afternoon and gone of point of question a little, but it was just stuck in my mind.



    I don’t want to be pedantic, but no one is VF compliant any more because VF was abolished from April this year.

    As the DWP letter just dated “June 2006” accompanying the new security guidance says “we have removed all references to previous funding arrangements, the voluntary aspect of the VF scheme, and VF – compliance status because they no longer apply.”


    thanks to everyone for their response, I think my authority knows the way we are heading with this issue now.



    with VF being “dead and buried” can anyone point me to the circular or bulletin or the updated and amended security manual?



Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.