Hi, have a cli. with a very high o/p of HB, caused he says due to the HB dept, saying he did not declare partners occu pension.

Without having many details as yet, not sure whether either of these 2 CD's will have relevance. At this time was just trying to find if any grounds to challenge..

CH/602/2004
States that claimant had omitted benefit on claim form, but the bank states clearly showed receipt of this benefit. Commission says claimants failure to mention on claim form did not mean he caused or contributed to the error..

However..

CH/69/2003
On IDB, claimant failed to tick box on claim form. Commissioner states not LA's role to analyse bank statements.


CH/69/2003 seems to contridict the first one.. or am I reading them wrong.. Or does the latter, over-rule the previous decision..?

Hi.

The difference seems to be that in CH/602/2004 the disablement benefit was clearly labelled as such on the bank statements, whereas in CH/69/2004 the benefit in question was just labelled "bank credit" on the statement.

The Commissioner in CH/602/2004 distinguishes his decision from CH/69/2004 on that basis (para 34).



Cheers Ros

Ah.. always something simple.. Thank you.. x