My client recieved a lump sum arrears payment of CSA maintenance. Her LA has taken it into account as (retrospective) income for the number of weeks covered by the payment (thus resulting in HB overpayment). CPAG handbook suggests the payment should have been treated as capital not income, but I can't find any reference to the relevant reg. Anyone have any pointers? Thanks!

My view is that the LA is correct. The starting point is that income is attributable to the period it is in respect of UNLESS there is an exception, or disregard.

To my knowledge, there is no exception, or disregard, relating to arrears of maintenance / CSA payments.

Hi Kevin. I've been looking at CPAG (p.764) which suggests lump sum maintenance payments are treated as capital rather than income. I've bunged an appeal in but looks like I'm probably barking up a non-existant tree, then?

Putting on my "who would I prefer to represent at Tribunal?" hat, I'd be plumping for the LA in this case - at least based on the info given so far.

So long as the LA can identify the period for which the income is in respect of, I'm not aware of any reg (or case law etc) that would support the clmt's argument. Even if a Tribunal found for the client, I'd be fairly confident of going to Cmmrs for the LA (barring case law / CDs showing otherwise).

Just had a thought: I wonder if there is a bit of confusion inadvertently caused by the CPAG analysis. In fact, it would be correct that the arrears count as capital for NOW, but as income for the attributable period.

Hi,

I have looked at the relevant pages in the CPAG book and agree with Kevin that it is slightly misleading.

HB 79(7) states the following:

"Where the change of circumstances is the payment of income, or arrears of income, in respect of a past period, the change of circumstances shall take effect from the first day on which such income, had it been timeously paid in the period at intervals appropriate to that income, would have fallen to be taken into account for the purposes of these Regulations."

I think that based on the above, I would have to agree with Kevin's interpretation and advice which is probably not what you want to hear!

Regards

John