I have a client who has been on IS/JSA for about 16 years, but has ended up with a HB overpayment of £5688! In November 06 he advised HB that his dtr and son-in-law had been living with him since May 04. They were asked for income proof, which his dtr provided, but the son-in-law did not provide, despite being asked repeatedly, no income proof was ever provided. Hence the OP is is max non-dep deductions for the entire period.
The client is really frustrated with the debt (understandably)and can't believe he is actually liable (his son-in-law refuses to help).
I have wracked my brains, but can't think of a way round this - not to mention the time scales involved. Am I missing something really obvious here?

It depends on the facts. Before offering more, what are the KNOWN facts about the son-in-laws circs?

For example:

1) Is/was he working?
2) If so, how many hours per week (on average)?
3) If 16 hours or more, what information is available about the type of his work?
4) What info (as distinguished from EVIDENCE) is available about the actual gross earnings (and other income) of the son-in-law?

NB: If average hours are under 16 for BOTH the daughter AND son-in-law respectively, the lower deduction applies, irrespective of the level of any other income.

Answers to the above *may* provide a possible argument and grounds of appeal.

Wed 05-Dec-07 04:12 PM by stalbansbens

Is the son-in-law or daughter in remunerative work? If not, it doesn't matter what their income is, only the lowest non-dep deduction would apply.

Assuming one of both of them are working, but the son-in-law refuses to provide evidence of his income, then I'd suggest the local authority are correct in applying the highest charge, but you might want to have a look at CH/48/2006. I'd also check they have only made one charge in respect of both non-deps as a couple and haven't made two seperate deductions.

Your client could apply for a Discretionary Housing Payment on the basis that his son-in-law refuses to contribute towards the rent (and request that it be 'back-dated' to 2004), but I'd suspect many a local authority would want to know why the son-in-law feels it is acceptable for him to live at the property and not contribute anything towards the housing costs. He could also request that the local authority exercise their discretion not to recover the debt on the same grounds, but I again I doubt whether that would be successful.

Can't really think of anything else! I'm assuming your client doesn't get DLA Care and the fact he gets IS/JSA (and not Pension Credit) suggests he is under 65 and therefore the non-dep deduction is not deferred for 26 weeks.

Edit - Posted before I saw Kevin's reply...