underlying entitlement offsetting overpayment when fleeing violence

Client has had regular psychotic episodes, not been sectioned but periods of accessing services. She was accused of living with alleged partner, not occupying her own house. Local Authority has investigated and upheld the allegation, terminating HB claim for 11 months from Jun 13 and raising overpayment.

Client consistently denied that she was not occupying house and provided various explanations as to why she had not used any gas or electricity, etc.

It has emerged since I met her that she may have been away from her house for various extended periods due to a fear of violence. She is quite vague about whether or not she was actually away from home and for how long, where, etc., but I can work on her for these details. It is unclear whether the threatened violence is real or part of her psychosis but she certainly feared it.

I was wondering about a backdate on this basis but presume that this will be limited to 6 months leaving a lengthy period of overpayment. Is it possible to argue instead that she would have had underlying entitlement to HB under temporary absence rules for up to 52 weeks on basis that she was fleeing fear of violence?

Obviously this creates an issue with her earlier denials of being away from the house but I think that her mental health could be the explanation for this.

Any thoughts much appreciated.

In this situation it’s not a backdate that she needs but a revision of the decision to end her HB.  Presumably that decision has been made fairly recently.  Even if she is outside the normal one month time limit to challenge it I shouldn’t think there will be any problem getting the time limit extended in her circumstances.  The fact that the Council didn’t know about the fear of violence during the months leading up to the decision doesn’t matter - she is arguing that the decision they have made now is based on the wrong facts and needs revising.