Hi folks, can anyone point me in the direction of a CD or similar

Claimant is on IS but is cancelled for period 3rd to 9th January 2008. Says he was messed about by job centre and is appealing - date to be set.

IS reinstated for period 10th January onwards but LA won't reinstate benefit because he hasn't replied to letters requesting details of income from 3rd-9th

He says that he spent most of that week sat in the job centre so had no income...

CD or caselaw supporting reinstatement of 10th January onwards would be spot on

Thanks

Its probably better to argue on the facts, if he lived hand to mouth during that period, then tell it how it is!

Why hasn't your client answered the letters? you could help him if needed, or, your La should assist him to write it, if he asks.

As an aside the La is obliged to make a decision with or without a reply to the letters already sent.

Not a problem to sort, quicker to write the letter than cite Cd's etc. there are none to mind that support your client's position even if he did not want benefit for the period not covered by IS.

Actually, there is some law to support the client's position.

Firstly, s.130(1)(c)(i) of the Social Security Contributions & Benefits Act 1992 makes it plain that HB is potentially payable to a claimant who has no income.

Secondly, what is the LA going to do for evidence? A claimant cannot prove a negative; the LA (presumably) has no evidence to contradict the clmt's stated position of having nil income. If all that is correct, any inference is going to be, er, nil income.

There are a couple of CDs in which Cmmrs have criticised LAs for drawing inappropriate adverse inferences in cases where clmts failed to provide info/evidence. CH/0048/2006 is an obvious example. In short, LAs must have regard to the evidence and info that IS available - even if incomplete.

In terms of notifying the LA of changes in circs, the clmt isn't necessarily required to inform the LA of the end, or start, of IS. HBR 88(1) only requires notification of changes which a clmt (or payee) "...might reasonably be expected to know might affect the claimant´s right to, the amount of or the receipt of housing benefit....".

This was what I was after - thanks Kevin D

Obviously also coming from the other side, but I'm with assessor on this one, whatever his feeings on JC+ messing him about, why doesnt he just answer the council's enquiries?

The council is acting reasonably, and should request information about his income for the period in question, in the absence of any kind of response it can then make a reasonable adverse inference that he is not entitled. This will then mean a period of no entitlement which brings the hb claim to an end and prevent the council from re-awarding hb in line with the re-award of income support, without a further claim form.

Going along with the councils queries will get the matter resolved far quicker than exchanges of CDs.

Of course he should answer the council's questions. However, I'm not sure the rest of this is right, with the greatest respect.

With the abolition of benefit periods back in 2004, the cessation of IS (unless in the specific circumstances set out in reg 77) does not automatically end entitlement to HB. At most, it raises a legitimate question as to entitlement that enables the authority to suspend benefit under reg 13 of the D&A regs. There then follows a period of at least a month before the authority can legitimately terminate under reg 14 of the D&A regs. If, before that month is up, the authority is in possession of information that the claimant is once more in receipt of IS (as, in this instance, it appears to have been), then an adverse inference in respect of the period 3rd-9th January is far from reasonable.

A period of nil entitlement does not have to end the claim - I see nothing in the regs to support this - and the authority can simply lift the suspension, make a revised decision of nil entitlement for the period 3rd-9th January (which can be further revised or superseded should the claimant eventually satisfy it as that period)but award from 10th January on.

I have actually dealt with (another) similar case this morning.

What often happens is that a "notification" is received from Dwp/Jc+ that IS/JSA has ended, followed by another "notification" showing further entitlement from a later date.

It is hard to make a reasonable inference when this is the only information received; it has been quite common in my experience, that, without contact with the customer that Hb is suspended when this happens to offer the chance for an explanation.



In this case has the client actually made a reply of any sort to the La?



I have no problem with awarding Hb to people with no income, or, inferring nil income for a period

past caring

the issue of what we call 'closed period supercessions' hasn't really been resolved with contrasting authorities (CIS/2593/2003 and CH/0269/2006, along with guidance from the DWP in G11/2007 (later withdrawn))

Most authorities now take the view that a period of nil-entitlement for any reason brings a claim to an end. While you could make an good argument that this is incorrect, you've then got a tenant on zero benefit while technical arguments whizz back and forth. Council's will in general seek to make their lives as easy as possible, allowing the council to apply nil income for the period by virtue of a brief statement, would seem to be a far more sensible solution for the customer

It is always prudent for an adviser to have his /her legal troops in reserve just in case the LA start making unreasonable demands and we’ve all come across these. However, I agree that the simplest approach often serves best and the claimant going in (where possible) and signing a brief statement that nil income, living off family and friends, etc) is most sensible option. It usually gets things sorting out much quicker than the alternatives.