I remember there was a fairly recent CD that said LA's cannot simply terminate a claim for failure to provide evidence. They must determine it on the information they have.

Does anyone know the reference?

Thanks,

I suspect you are looking for CH 2798 2005.

This differentiates a "defective" claim from a claim where the LA writes for further evidence. In the later case the LA cannot just find a claimant not entitled.

CH/2155/2003

CH/2155/2003 was heard with CH/3423/2003, CH/3511/2003 and CH/3600/2003 by a tribunal of commissioners. CPAG were involved and so was Paul Stagg and it is about as authorotative as it gets. It has probably been reported by now.

Thanks very much all!! Much appreciated.

On a similiar vein, does anyone know if there is a legal authority for LA's to ASSUME that income and capital is too high for benefit, without actually specifying the amount they assume the client to have so they can calculate benefit?

I can't see anything in the regs that allows for such an assumption to be made - although as we all know, they do it all the time...

Sometimes LA's do it by 'notional income', which is wrong, but in this case, the decision just says "you have not sent us proof which means we can assume your income/capital is too high to get benefit".

Thanks as always for any suggestions.

Assuming LAs have regard to the info & evidence actually available. R(H) 3/05 is the legal authority for drawing inferences.

Several CDs since have followed the principle without (apparent) dissent, although one or two have made it clear that LAs can't ignore partial evidence (famously/infamously CH/0048/2006).

there are times when you just have to wonder whether all the pouring over of regulations and case law is just peeing into the wind, during a hurricane...

LA's are proving remarkably adaptable and resistent to the valiant attempts of Commissioners to lick them into shape since unification into the appeals system...

from R(H)3/05 to the muppets 'you have not sent us proof, which means we can assume anything we like, and what we like is to disallow claims...'

please tell me they weren't waiting for his IS award notice...

It does seem to be the case that some LA's did not not grasp the implications of moving from the internal appeals sytem to the external one. From time to time we still have to point out that Commissioners decisions have to be taken into account. Perhaps it's the case that the assessors, like DM's in JCP/DBU, are bombarded with so much in the way of Circulars, Guidances and the like that Commissioners decisions are but another annoyance......

Thanks all,

I'm pleased to let you know JJ that the LA weren't waiting for an IS decision.

It was just repeated requests for info - you know, the type that just cause anger and confusion for clients who have already supplied it, and eventually the LA just does the 'assumption'. In this case, I wanted to make reps to the LA about the right or not to cancel/withdraw claims, but in the end, I found evidence that all they needed had been provided so just made arguments along those lines.

This is a common source of complaint for our clients so thanks for all the info provided. Will deffo prove very useful in the future.