Can one ask for the backdated removal of the highest rate of nondeduction and application of the lowest rate or is it a matter of asking for a reassessment?

Thanks

I don't think "backdating" comes into it. If the highest deduction was used because of lack of information about the ND's income, which is subsequently supplied, I would thought it was an anytine revision for ignorance of a material fact.

If the highest deduction was used when it should not have been (e.g. it was known that the ND was not in remunerative work) then it is an anytime revision for official error.

I don't see how it can be a supercession because there has been no change of circs; there has just been a clarification of the circs that have existed all along, so I don't see that any time limits apply.

On the subject of applying the maximum deduction where the non dep has refused to supply details of earnings, see CH/0048/2006, and paras 5 & 6 in particular - below is an extract from para 6.

This would appear to be a far more commonsense approach....



=========================================

Notwithstanding the terms of regulation 63, both the local authority and the tribunal had the duty to assess, on the evidence available and on the balance of probabilities, what the likely level of the daughter’s earnings were. This, in my judgment, both the local authority and tribunal failed to do: each proceeded on the basis that because no positive evidence from the daughter or the claimant had been produced, the very worst had to be assumed against the daughter. In my judgment regulation 63 does not drive either the original decision maker or any tribunal to such an irrational result. In my judgment if, on the evidence available, an estimate can be made of a non-dependent’s income, with reasonable adverse assumptions being made where inferences have to be drawn because no evidence is available, then that is the appropriate course for the decision maker or the tribunal to take.