Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
DLA and shared parental responsibility
Im probably clutching at straws here but here goes
Client has 50% shared custody of disabled child
Child qualifies for DLA and mother gets benefit paid to her
he has the extra expenses incurred (hospital parking, transport, clothing etc etc)
She refuses to give him a penny of the DLA and he is struggling
Any tactics to sort this or is there no provision for this
No provision in DLA regs for splitting the DLA 50-50.
I had similar case once and there one ex-partner got the DLA and the other claimed the Child Tax Credit (with the extra amount for this disabled child). I think both ex-es thought this was a fair way of sharing the cost of the extra needs arising out of the disability.
But stretching over all of this there was maintenance being agreed. Would not this then sort out any discrepancies arising from benefits not being able to be shared 50-50? My involvement in the case ended before I could see what maintenance was eventually agreed.
Can he not
- claim Carers Allowance?
- hospital travel costs for the child?
- decline to purchase clothing if care is shared 50/50 and he simply can’t afford it?
Sorry, I do not know which regulations to quote.
However an adviser from another organisation said that it is up to the DLA department who should be the appointee in child DLA cases. If you client contacts the DLA department they will conduct an investigation.
Sorry, I do not know which regulations to quote.
However an adviser from another organisation said that it is up to the DLA department who should be the appointee in child DLA cases. If you client contacts the DLA department they will conduct an investigation.
True, but there would only be an investigation if there was something to investigate. That would imply an abuse of the appointeeship. Where there is 50/50 care the argument becomes harder from the off.
Sorry, I do not know which regulations to quote.
However an adviser from another organisation said that it is up to the DLA department who should be the appointee in child DLA cases. If you client contacts the DLA department they will conduct an investigation.
True, but there would only be an investigation if there was something to investigate. That would imply an abuse of the appointeeship. Where there is 50/50 care the argument becomes harder from the off.
Is any of the DLA being spent on the child?
To be frank, I don’t think this is an issue about benefit entitlement as such.
It’s about the relationship between the parents and chid maintenance and as such, the father’s options are either to try and resolve through mediation or unfortunately, through a solicitor and the courts if that doesn’t work.
As it stands, we only have one person’s side of the story insofar as incurring expenses and I wouldn’t be comfortable advising someone on how to look to make a counter claim in the scenario as stated to be honest.
To be frank, I don’t think this is an issue about benefit entitlement as such.
It’s about the relationship between the parents and chid maintenance and as such, the father’s options are either to try and resolve through mediation or unfortunately, through a solicitor and the courts if that doesn’t work.
As it stands, we only have one person’s side of the story insofar as incurring expenses and I wouldn’t be comfortable advising someone on how to look to make a counter claim in the scenario as stated to be honest.
I can’t see any issue with advising them on how to counter claim provided it was accompanied by the sort of detail we’ve been discussing i.e. that it’s not straight forward and, on the facts presented, there may not be any basis for it to succeed. Up to them what they do then. Normal assumption is that welfare rights advice is about person versus organisation rather than person versus person.
The difficulty is that even on different ‘facts’ (e.g. an allegation that “she spends all the money on booze and fags”) any counter claim is going to be difficult - simply because entirely compelling evidence that the DLA is being misspent or misused is going to be extremely difficult to get hold of. How does one establish that expenditure on ‘booze and fags’ is DLA money rather than the parent’s own income? Quite rightly, parents are not required to account separately for their own funds and those paid on behalf or in respect of children. In the much more likely scenario that the parent were putting aside a portion of the DLA to take themselves and the child on holiday, who would (reasonably) try to argue the money was not being spent on the child’s welfare and needs?
The kind of ‘facts’ needed to establish a competing claim will be likely to involve a level of mud slinging that can only make an already poor relationship worse and is something that isn’t likely to be at all beneficial to the child’s welfare.
Though a competing claim might not have the cost implications of court action, I’d suggest that the latter course would be the better one if the parent who is not receiving DLA really wishes to pursue the issue. Moral judgement about and unwarranted intrusion into how money is spent doesn’t have to come into it - or at least not to anything like the same degree. “This is my income, this is hers; we have 50% care each - this is what I spend, this is what she spends.”
Not disagreeing with Mike, just believe that any advice on this really does need to be holistic advice - and I do wonder whether all WRO’s have not just the technical knowledge but also the (life) experience to advise on this properly in the round.
Sorry, I do not know which regulations to quote.
However an adviser from another organisation said that it is up to the DLA department who should be the appointee in child DLA cases. If you client contacts the DLA department they will conduct an investigation.
True, but there would only be an investigation if there was something to investigate. That would imply an abuse of the appointeeship. Where there is 50/50 care the argument becomes harder from the off.
Is any of the DLA being spent on the child?
There’s no obligation to spend the DLA on the child bar the usual obtuse reference which comes up once a decade.
We don’t know anything about whether the contact arrangements for 50/50 care are informal or through a court order. We don’t know whether there is any child maintenance arrangement in place, formal or otherwise. We know nothing about the circumstances of the mother. Advising someone on how they can challenge the fact of who receives DLA for a child in those circumstances isn’t something I would be entering into myself.
That’s interesting. I would take the view that we are obliged to advise on the how if they ask the question but, equally, that is accompanied by the advice re: what might be needed for that to succeed and an expression as to how likely/unlikely that is based on what we know. No different to what we do with other benefits surely?
That’s interesting. I would take the view that we are obliged to advise on the how if they ask the question but, equally, that is accompanied by the advice re: what might be needed for that to succeed and an expression as to how likely/unlikely that is based on what we know. No different to what we do with other benefits surely?
No, i think there’s a fundamental difference between advising him he could claim CA and hospital fares as above or that DLA payments can’t be split 50-50, for example, and the issue of looking to find out ways to make a competing DLA claim.
The former is benefits advice, the latter is almost definitely intruding into family arrangements that could be very badly damaged with all kinds of potential repercussions for his contact with his child and his relationship with his ex. If we’re giving advice on any particular situation, we need to be aware of all of the circumstances and in this case, we don’t know anything about some of the issues I noted above and which are directly relevant to the situation in hand.
I agree with Paul. ‘Is the child entitled to DLA’ is a benefits question. Who gets the money isn’t.
The OP didn’t ask who gets the money. The OP was about tactics. The subsequent responses are all about the options available.
I see no problem with advising about options provided it’s accompanied, as already said, by clear advice on likelihood. In this case it’s perfectly possible on the basis of what we have to say “these are your options but we don’t have enough info. to know if any of them are viable” or “these are your options but there are a whole other set of issues you will need to consider” or even “these are your options but you are going to need considerably more advice before you can make an informed decision on what, if anything, to do.”
Saying, “I’m sorry I can’t possibly tell you your options in case you do something detrimental to yourself” is equivalent to accepting the argument that one shouldn’t identify PIP as an option for an addict in case they have either an absolutely hopeless case or might use it in service of their addiction.
Not dissimilar to when one person wants to challenge the appointeeship of another. There may be zero basis for doing so but that’s no basis for “I’m sorry I can’t tell you that” Telling someone how to do something, accompanied by that “zero basis” statement is fine.
And so, yes, as Past Caring says, “holistic advice”!
[ Edited: 22 Feb 2017 at 02:23 pm by Mike Hughes ]The difficulty is that even on different ‘facts’ (e.g. an allegation that “she spends all the money on booze and fags”) any counter claim is going to be difficult - simply because entirely compelling evidence that the DLA is being misspent or misused is going to be extremely difficult to get hold of. How does one establish that expenditure on ‘booze and fags’ is DLA money rather than the parent’s own income? Quite rightly, parents are not required to account separately for their own funds and those paid on behalf or in respect of children. In the much more likely scenario that the parent were putting aside a portion of the DLA to take themselves and the child on holiday, who would (reasonably) try to argue the money was not being spent on the child’s welfare and needs?
The kind of ‘facts’ needed to establish a competing claim will be likely to involve a level of mud slinging that can only make an already poor relationship worse and is something that isn’t likely to be at all beneficial to the child’s welfare.
Though a competing claim might not have the cost implications of court action, I’d suggest that the latter course would be the better one if the parent who is not receiving DLA really wishes to pursue the issue. Moral judgement about and unwarranted intrusion into how money is spent doesn’t have to come into it - or at least not to anything like the same degree. “This is my income, this is hers; we have 50% care each - this is what I spend, this is what she spends.”
Not disagreeing with Mike, just believe that any advice on this really does need to be holistic advice - and I do wonder whether all WRO’s have not just the technical knowledge but also the (life) experience to advise on this properly in the round.
I would like to make it clear I have no expertise in counter claims. Its just I think the client should be given that option. There are two parents and if care is being shared 50% and if they both want to be appointees it is a subjective decision on who should be the appointee. When I asked about whether any of the money was being spent on the child I was not implying that it was being spent on anything inappropriate. I was merely asking it as an open ended question. I am sorry if I have offended anyone .