Terms & Conditions

[Anonymous]

Can anyone help?

We have had a couple of cases where evidence of income was not produced with the application and despite follow up letters none was provided. We then made a decision that the claim was defective and refused it – full appeal rights etc.

The evidence was produced some time later and the defective claim decision appealed. TTS have allowed the appeal on the basis that it is open to the claimants to produce evidence at a later date and that the Council can accept it – old reg 73/new reg 86.

My question is that for stats purposes, BVPIs etc, should this then be counted as a successful new claim – this will add lots of days to our average days? Date of input being months after date of claim. It has already been counted as an unsuccessful new claim the first time round.

[Anonymous]

I’d say that as you’re just revising your original decision it shouldn’t count as a new claim. 🙂

This is the basis on which the authority that I’m currently at has been working on for a while. We put them down as a continuation period for the original claim on the system, which stops them counting towards the new claims stats, whilst leaving the original period on the system, and re-calcing over the top of this with the correct details.

Hope this helps (and makes sense, I’m tired as I was out counting votes last night 🙄 )
Jon

[Anonymous]

Can anyone tell me what are the real consequeces for Councils if they dont meet certain performance indicators such as carrying out the “required” number of visits, claim to payment indicators etc.

By real consequences I mean financial penalties etc, not just looking bad because of some spurious position in a league table

[Anonymous]

Stainsby,

Failure to meet the complete the required number of interventions will result in VF funding being withdrawn retrospectively for the year in question.

Poor PI performance will result in increased external inspection, BFI etc (incurring costs), and will ultimately affect any CPA score.

Mark

[Anonymous]

On the subject of VF, I notice that A3/2006 para 40 says VF and SAFE come to an end from April 2006 and that a new HB/CTB Security Guidance Manual will provide advice on verification and associated aspects of security.

What are the implications of this and where is the new manual?

[Kevin D]

As an aside to Astrid’s point about the status of her claim, the Tribunal’s decision is interesting. Depending on the facts, it could be in contradiction to [b:a954a5d1de]CH/2466/2005[/b:a954a5d1de].

Regards

[Author]

Posts