Terms & Conditions

[ig2kbar]

Morning 😆
couple – now aged 60 in January 2006 have elderly non dependant parents living with them – on pension credit. Have retrieved information from CIS system under claimants, partners NINO which shows that she in entitled to Carers Allowance but does not recieve payment and also that she get thes Attendance Allowance that links to her elderly non dep father – my question is………..should she get u/e to carers allowance back to Dec 2004 (being date shown on CIS as award date) ??? and the Attendance Allowance … should it be shown as HER income as she receives it on behalf of her father but it is HIS income as the entitlment is his?? CIS shows the Attendance is in payment from May 05. Not really sure where to go – looking at Zebedee she has u/e entitlement to Carer Allowance so should be treated as Carer but not sure what to do with Attendance Allowance – anyone??? 😕

[Anonymous]

Well the Attendance Allowance belongs legally to the father, but many AA recipients allow their carer to keep it as a kind of thank you. The purpose of the benefit is to cover the cost of care, and rewarding a relative is one way of buying care. If that is the case, you could argue that the AA is your claimant’s income, paid to her by the non-dependant. Even so, it would be disregarded because:

– para 21 of Schedule 5 to the working age Regs says so, and
– Reg 29 of the 60+ Regs does not include it as income in the first place

As for the Carer Premium by virtue of underlying CA, D&A Regs 4(7B) and 7(2)(i) allow revision and supersession of any HB decisions that are affected by the award of CA. As followers of other threads devoted to this subject will know, DWP takes the view that you can award full arrears of Carer Premium all the way back to when it started, even though you have ony been told about it now. I disagree – I think any decisions you made after the claimant was awarded CA should not be revised or superseded on those grounds – you can supersede the decision that was in force at the effective date of the CA award, and you can revise any subnsequent decisions that were in force from a date covered by any arrears element of the CA award, but in my view you cannot revise any more recent decisions that were wrong simply because the claimant didn’t tell you about the CA.

[Anonymous]

I see. So you have a whole load of overlapping previously unknown circumstances, the net result of which you suspect is going to be an overpayment. It’s just that when you first calculated the overpayment, you didn’t know about the underlying CA?

Well you can use the CA for Reg 104 purposes, yes. But can you give a bit more info? What was the original reason why you made an excess benefit decision? Earnings or something like that?

[Andi M]

4(7B)(a) refers to the ‘original decision’ awarding housing or council tax benefit.
(b) then refers to entitlement to to the relevant benefit or an increase in the relevant benefit ‘which includes the date on which the original decision took effect’ the relevant authority may revise or further revise that original decision at any time.

The problem i see here (please point out my erred thinking as it will make my day) is once you have revised or re-revised your original decision, any superceeded decisions you have already made wont be caught because they are not the ‘original decision’.

Please help!!!!! 😯

[Andi M]

4(7B)(a) refers to the ‘original decision’ awarding housing or council tax benefit.
(b) then refers to entitlement to to the relevant benefit or an increase in the relevant benefit ‘which includes the date on which the original decision took effect’ the relevant authority may revise or further revise that original decision at any time.

The problem i see here (please point out my erred thinking as it will make my day) is once you have revised or re-revised your original decision, any superceeded decisions you have already made wont be caught because they are not the ‘original decision’.

Please help!!!!! 😯

[Anonymous]

I think “original decision” is a term of art meaning “the decision as it stands before you revise it” – even it has already been revised or superseded before. It is “original” relative to the revision action that you are contemplating.

But I think there is still a problem revising under Reg 4(7B) where the latest incarnation of the decision only came into existence after the relevant benefit was awarded. I know the DWP doesn’t see it that way, and I see their point, I just don’t agree with it.

[ig2kbar]

It all came about following HBMS match on Working Tax Credits in October 06…..it was discovered then that the customer had notified us of his entitlement to TAx Credtis on Postal Int – but LA missed it – therefore LA error o/p raised for period April 05 to Jan 06 (couple turned 60 and app amount increased)! Customer appealed – looked at claim again – as well as declaring tax credits on form also stated his partner got Attendance Alllowance……. following his appeal……possible reconsideration IF she did get Attendance……..do CIS check which elicits info that she is entitled to Carers Allowance but no payment and father in law entitled to Attendance but she get it……… hence original post………since then ………losing the will to live now – have contacted the Carers Unit who have confirmed that she does not have an underlying entitlement – she actually gets the money!!!!!! will now have to go back and revise decision unfavourably to claimant as will include Carers Allowance as income back to Dec 04…….. 👿

[Anonymous]

That certainly makes it easier!

[Anonymous]

The person could be held to be holding the attendance allowance in trust for his elderly father and therefore it should not be taken into account.

I am interested to hear that the person is getting working tax credit as of October 06 and also carers allowance because you can not be gainfully employed and get carers allowance

Gainfully employed means earning more than £84 per week. Minimum wage is £5.35 per hour. You need to be working 16hrs per week to get working tax credit, and so if he worked 16hrs he would be earning too much to get carers allowance.

Or is it his partner who is working?

[Author]

Posts