I am currently working with a client who is on Incapacity Benefit & DLA. It has recently come to light that IB have been paying his DLA component on top of the IB into his Post Office account as well as DLA paying him into his bank account. IB now want to claim back £2700 for the last 3 years of over payment. My client has learning difficulties and mental ill health and was and is not aware of the actual amount he should be receiving so did not realise that he was getting two payments. Would we be able to support him in having this overpayment written off?
Many thanks

Sounds like straight down the line official error to me and therefore not recoverable from your client. Are they trying to recover it under common law? There have been previous threads on common law recovery and how to deal with it but I'm hopeless at links and am responding from home so can't ask Tony 'computer whiz' Bowman- anyone who knows one end of a computer from another out there?

So far they have just sent a standard letter asking for the money back. We have taken our client to the CAB. They suggested writing a letter disagreeing with the decision and then appealing if they still chase it.

In court proceedings in claims for restitution on the ground of unjust enrichment (and that phrase is not unproblematic for a start) there is a defence if the person genuinely believed they were entitled to the money and has spent it.

Duplicate payments are not recoverable under social security law so social security appeal tribunals have no jurisdiction..

In spite of CPAG’s legal challenge the DWP is still pursuing recovery of duplicate payments. See the link below.

http://www.cpag.org.uk/cro/briefings/DWP_overpayment_Guidance_0808.pdf

just to add - there is no right of appeal, there is no recoverability decision- recovery is a Sec of State's decision -and there is also no right of recovery by deduction from benefits.
barring voluntary repayment, a decision on behalf of the secretary of state is needed - to pursue through the court, or write off recovery. the SoS is expected to exercise his discretion judicially, natch...