i requested a backdate for a tenant of mine.. March 2006 - 07. This was requested last year and they have just written back to me about it..

They have decided he has good cause...

but...

Wont pay due to two reasons:

1. He does not have a bank account. Halifax have written a word sentance letter saying the account is closed but nothing further. HB dept wrote to them about this and they havent responded to them, so tnt cannot get backdate cos Halifax havent responded to HB department..

2. They do not beleive he is getting benefits paid by cheque, I now have evidence of this, so this bit is ok..

I have also phoned the DWP and they confirmed that he is getting cheques and given the date.. couldnt HB have done this..

So I am due to appeal the decision.. on the basis that the DWP have paid him by cheque since August 2004 and that his only income is ICB.. and that he should not be penalised by non communication by Halifax (but seeing as the cheques have been paid for the entire back date period then the account issue isnt an issue...?)

But.. Now found HB are assessing him on ICB and DLA. DWP confirmed today he has never received DLA.. He has 2 non deps in the property, so potentially this is going to raise an o/p... But one of the non deps does get DLA, and im wondering if they have inputtes NDs DLA onto clients assessment.. If this is the case, do we have argument that they should not recovery any overpayment..

Just wanted to sound out the experts on this one, as this is not my area... So any thoughts would be gratefully received..

Also, do you have to appeal the HB decidion not to backdate or can we ask for a review or something.. The next stage of appealing is tribunal and this is something that worries the life out of me.. I would rather take the issue up with the Local Govt Ombudsman.. Would this be an option instead of Tribunal..? Or could you do both Tribunal and Ombudsman..?

Any help please.. Further info can be given if required.. xx

The decision appears to be that he has good cause for not claiming at an earlier date, but is not entitled from that date as he has not established his entitlement.

I am really not certain, however, what the basis for the LA’s decision that he has not established entitlement. Having a bank account is not a requirement for entitlement to HB so I can only assume that the LA just don’t believe he does not have one.

If this is the case then you should just appeal the non-entitlment decision and the LA will have to substantiate their reasons for believing your client does have a bank account and provide evidence to support their view.

If they have no evidence then the appeal hearing will be very short and I cannot see any way that TAS will not find for your client.

Once you will the appeal over entitlement then, as good cause has been accepted, backdated benefit should be paid without the need to appeal.

If DLA has been loaded in error by the LA then your client will just have to show that he could not reasonably have been expected to know he was being overpaid. If DLA was shown on the entitlement letters your client will have to explain why he did not notice this and report the error to the LA.

Thanks for that.. I would have thought that the LA could have doen what I did today, phone the DWP.. if they had done that they would have then found out that he has been paid by cheque sonce August 2004 (which covers the whole backdate period).. I understand that they are probably concerned that he has a bank account stashed with thousands, but the Halifax have confirmed the account was closed (letter dated March 07), but closed much earlier than this.. The DLA is obviously not being paid into an account as he does not even receive it which they would hvae known, again if they had rung the DWP...

So, from what you say, If I can now say, that I have a letter from the DWP which he receives with the cheques plus the DWP telephone call info (I have had HB verification training) that he is getting paid by cheque and no DLA award (ever).. then presumably they should backdate..?

But then this wouldbe off set by the NDD's that will then hit the account...

I can of course, argue against recovery of this based on clients mental health (same reasons they have agreed why they would backdate) and if found it was their error...?

Last thing..

Can I just go for complaint to LGO or is Tribunal the better option.. Or can I do both if needed..?

Ok.. so just found my previous file, when I had access to the benefits info...

Tnt appears to have put the income details of his ICB onto the DLA section by mistake. HB then asked for verification from the DWP about his income and were told he is only on ICB and no entitleement to DLA or other beenfits..

Therefore, whilst tnt made a mistake about where he wrote the amount of ICB he gets.. He provided no evidence of the DLA - obviously and then the income was confirmed by DWP.. As such what are my chances of getting them to not recover any overpaymetn made by them assessing his claim using DLA income (which in fact his ND gets) which has meant no ND deductions...

I broadly agree with jmembery's observations.

Going to the LGO and appealing are two separate paths. If the LA ultimately decides there is an o/p due to DLA being attributed to the wrong person, the LA will first have to decide if the o/p is recoverable. If the LA has not made a mistake, the o/p will automatically be recoverable, irrespective of ANY other consideration.

If the LA has made an error, any resulting o/p is still recoverable if the clmt either contributed to the mistake, OR, could reasonably have been expected to realise he was being overpaid at the time of any notice relating to the payment, or at the time of the payment. In turn, only a Tribunal can deal with an appeal.

The LGO can only deal with the (mal)administration side of things - s/he cannot deal with a formal appeal.

Just one point on the flip side; I'm not at all convinced the LA was under an obligation to make contact with the DWP in the manner suggested. The LA *may* have considered doing so as a courtesy, but (generally) the onus is on the clmt to satisfy the LA as to any entitlement.

Hope this helps.

Hi, thanks for your comments..

I take on board what you say about the LA and the client having responsibility.. In regards to the LA contacting the DWP.. But they did do this and the DWP responded saying client only in receipt of ICB..

I know the HB dept can recover, and I am throwing about reasons to argue against them doing this...

My onus at the mo, is that he is due to alcoholism, he was not mentally capable of dealing with this.. They have accepted that as good reason to backdate, so Im hoping I can use it again in the DLA mistake bit..

Can only hope.. But need you good people to sound out to as you know the rules and regulations.. x