I'm not particularly au fait with the workings of the inner sanctum of the IIDB scheme so need some help please. Client had increase in IIDB which they've (innocently) failed to disclose to IS. Would Hinchy be feasible argument - depending of course on the outcome of the recent appeal ?
Many thanks in anticipation

Tue 08-Feb-05 04:08 PM by ken

Sue

Don’t know if this helps but I have a case concerning IS and IDB resting on Hinchy principles. My client’s IDB stopped and he did not ask for review of IS within the 1 month. Has been refused backdating and has appealed.

I have sent letter arguing the following. Claim form for IDB asks if getting IS. Claim form for IS asks if getting any other benefits. Therefore, info’ re – both benefits not only in possession of the Secretary of State (as legal fiction) but also in possession of both IDB and IS offices. Have quoted from Hinchy passages where it states that SoS should be expected to have systems in place whereby one department notifies the other.

Have written to IDB office asking what their systems are, if any. No reply, re-sent letter this time renewing request under FOI Act.

Have argued Hinchy (in reverse if you like) that no obligation on claimant to tell SoS something already knows, i.e. cessation of IDB. Systems should be in place for IDB office to communicate info to IS office as had info’ when IDB claimed that claimant was on IS. Therefore IS should have been increased automatically, or further info’ sought from claimant.

Appeal not been listed yet and I am expecting it to be stayed pending outcome of Hinchy in HoL.

Will let you know outcome.

Regards
Paul

Good 'un Paul - keep me updated.

Funny one this - on client's instructions I've sent the letters to local office today to actually disclose the husband's IIDB increase which they won't even be aware of until tomorrow's post arrives. She's therefore not had o/p decision yet but I wanted to back up the disclosure with as much as i could before they made a decision about recoverablity. Although I've not specifically mentioned Hinchy due to currently awaiting the outcome, I have noted all the same issues such as having systems in place etc etc along with other issues which they should consider.

Client had originally come in abt another ongoing o/p issue - capital after PI damages - and it came to light when I asked about her current benefits. She had no idea her husband's IIDB had increased - only knew how much she could withraw from bank each fortnight - never had a statement since benefits been paid into PO (along with numerous other clients but that's a different story). Obviously this didn't gel with her applic amount.

On IS notification the IIDB was £24.02. Her IS and his IB were paid fortnightly with what seemed like a fortnightly amount of his original IIDB. However it had doubled at some point and was actually credited into bank weekly but she was none the wiser.

Trouble is it now takes them off IS which will have knock on effect with HB/CTB.

If only life were simple

Drawing on my elephant memory - there definitely used to be procedures aimed at prevention of overpayments and duplication of payments when all systems were clerical. A series of C73 forms was in use between the IIDB sections and the IS sections, and endorsements in red ink on case files - all of which were laid down in standing instructions to staff in the procedural code - it used to be known as the IP(B), and i assume there were corresponding instructions in the S and IS manuals. This was when IIDB sections were in the local office. Both types of changes would have been identified to the IS section at the time of the award/disallowance. Working in accordance with the benefit codes was the requisite standard for the job at that time, maintained by a fairly rigorous system of various checks.

To the best of my recollection, an overpayment occurring because a C73S wasn't returned to the IS section on change of award, would be classed as an official error. The code instructions hadn't been followed.

These systems started to break down when computerisation rolled out in the DSS around 1991-ish. IIDB continued as a clerical system long afterwards, and I don't know to what extent it has been computerised since. I was on IS at that time, and PODOP seemed to have been a forgotten need - as in, not thought though when the IS system was designed. In the lack of proper instructions, experienced staff at the time improvised, but a lot of casual staff were recruited at that time, and the DSS morphed into the BA.

Whilst the breakdown of these procedures appeared (to me at least) to be due to omission (incompetence), a conscious decision was made at this time to abandon what had previously been considered good practice, and that was to quickly check the last claim, on processing a new income support claim. This had been easy enough when the claim forms were held in a case paper, but not when the claim form was in a temporary plastic wallet. It was known that people could easily forget to declare an occ. pen or IIDB they'd reported previously, but prevention of overpayments was not considered cost effective. It would be the claimant's fault if the entries on his 40 odd page claim form were not accurate. (bloody-minded)

I mention this history, while we await the Hinchy outcome, to point out that there has been a change in the SoS's attitude towards his responsibilities, whilst other changes, particularly cost driven changes have occurred. It will be interesting to see what the HoL decide is reasonably expected of a SoS.

Times certainly do change, and although Hincchy is concerned with sect 71, I'm wondering how long the SoS is going to be able to get away with the Sec 74 child benefit arrears overpayments he's got away with for years, or whether contemporary expectations of the computer generation will figure at all.

unscrutinised 'claimant error' figures, eh?

jj