Hi all,
I have had two clients recently who have not had the dis premium added to their HB, thus giving the wrong applicable amount.

Both have been on IB for over a year, one would have gone onto LTR IB in November 2008. Both have HB using the correct amounts, i.e. £89.80 per week, but the HB letters state that they are on Short Term Higher IB.

What I want to know is if HB need to be notified of the change from short term higher to long term IB, or if this should be done automatically? When I have called HB they have told me that it is the fault of the client for not informing them of this change.

My thinking is that people would not necessarily inform HB of that change as the income figure remains the same.

Also HB do seem to have taken account of other increases automatically, i.e.: from short term lower to higher, so why not the other change?

Can anyone offer any advice or regs/guidance etc on this one?

Many thanks.

For changes in income, the primary responsibility is that of the claimant to notify LAs of changes in circs - even state benefits. SOME staff at SOME LAs happen to have a level of knowledge about other benefits that results in the apparently "automatic" changes (such as IB). But, LAs are not generally expected to have such knowledge and the onus is on the claimant. Although in a different context, this principle is reflected in, for example, CH/0687/2006.

Just one other thing; (bear in mind I'm not an expert on IB), I'm struggling to see how the income figure could remain the same. I understood the LT rate of IB would result in an increased amount when compared to the short-term higher rate.

To add.

Just reread the OP. If the LA has identified the correct income, it suggests it has been input under the wrong income codes on the computer system. If so, that would (in my view) be an "official error".

If that is so, the LA absolutely has discretion to correct its error at ANYTIME - regulation 4(2) of the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Decisions & Appeals) Regulations 2001.

If the LA refuses, there isn't a right of appeal; but the refusal could still be subject to Judicial Review. I would also consider complaining, relying on irrationality / unreasonableness / anti-poverty strategy and so on.

Hi there, Thanks re the IB amounts. I've realised that I've been a complete spud, in that I was looking at the over 60 short term higher rate of IB in cpag.

But that makes it look more like possible official error, in that they have stated that he is on Short Term Higher rate of IB of £89.82 pw ( I don't know where the 2 pence has come from??)

Therefore they obviously have input that his income has increased, but maybe selected the wrong codes as you said.

Thank you.

I really am being incredibly slow today.

If not already done, ask for a statement of reasons. For HB/CTB, there is no time limit for making such a request. The point? A brand new appeal right is generated - 14 days from the day the SoR is issued.

And I think you would certiainly win that appeal. The LA are using the correct income, but ( and I think Kevin is right ) they have inputted it onto their system as short term high rate IB

The condition for the disability premium is that the relevant person gets long term IB or has been incapacitated for more then 364 days. The latter condition would apply if the person did not qualify for IB because the national insurance contribution conditions were not met.

The point is that the amount of IB paid cannot possibly be short term high rate IB.

I represented in CH/687/2006. It is an overpayment case. The Commisioner held that there had been no official error because the claimant had not disclosed the change in the partners IB. The case did not rest on a question as to the disability premium, but in the case we are discussing here, it is obvious that the person has been incapacitated for more than 364 days so the disability premium applies.

In my experience, the error of inputting long term IB as short term high rate IB is very common aand it should always be corrected whenever it is discovered. I suspect that there may be many claimants who are missing out because the error goes undetected