I have a client who from '98 was claiming;
I.B plus age addition,
I.S inc. Family element, Child element, Disability element
Adult Dependancy Increase (ADI)?? (Is that what it's called)
Also received small Occ Pen of £7.50 p/w

She received a letter from JC+ in March notifying her that they had superseded the decision that she was entitled to I.S.
Reason given: JC+ did not correctly calculate entitlement. Official error therefore no overpayment recoverable.
No further details in relation to how they had her calculated entitlement were given.

As I.S old rules are not my strong point, and I have never heard of ADI (lucky enough to be too young!!) I wrote, clearly disputing the decision, enclosing authority, and asked for written reasons and a comprehensive breakdown of her benefit claim.
Cl's mental health/memory is not great and she wasn't sure what she was getting at this point.
Complaint 1: No response to my letter received.

Concerned about time limits for appeal, Sent GL24 (listing me as rep)
Complaint 2: No acknowledgement of receipt of GL24

Telephoned to confirm receipt of the above.
Complaint 3: Despite above communication and knowing more about case that JC+ hack. 'No consent to discuss'

Called contact at local JC+ who luckily knew client very well and agreed to 'look into it'. A call back confirmed that all my letters were sitting in the file. Also confirmed that having checked the DM calculations - contact felt the DM had misapplied the I.S regs regarding the ADI. Regs state ADI should be fully disregarded and DM had not done this choosing instead to count the ADI as income and thus pushing Clabove the means testing threshold for I.S

Wrote again - complaining!!! and detailing the relevant regs and again asking for communication.
Complaint 4: You've guessed it.... nothing (Getting slightly irate at this point - start drafting complaint to BDC manager and MP)

Naturally the Cl's full 'passporting' entitlement to HB and CTB ceased due to loss of I.S and due to her other income she had a shortfall to pay. Sent GL24 explaining that I thought JC+ had got it wrong. LA very helpful agreed to hold action until outcome of appeal.

By this stage due to loss of income Cl cannot now afford her therapies - not provided on NHS - and is starting to think she is better of not here. Suicidal thoughts have never previously been an issue in the 2 yrs I have known client.

Couple more calls to JC+ and I have now lost the plot.

August - Call received from my contact to say decision has been changed in Cl's favour. Few days later Cl received a letter confirming this, no apology for the official error, no details, nothing.

Letter to BDC manager enclosing copies of the only 2 letters Cl received from JC+, copy of letter to MP (4 pages long) and letter from social worker detailing the decline to Cl's mental health since March. I asked for full explanation, and requested compensation for maladministartion for client as the entire mess - included lack of communication - was unacceptable and caused JC+.

Complaint 5: Although I received a call from BDC manager to confirm looking into the complaint - no written acknowledgement received.

Called BDC manager today who confirmed that I.S was re-instated yesterday including full backdated amount. Also £100 special payment for disruption to Cl. Manager confirmed a letter is on its way to Cl and notification to LA.

Complaint 6: Where the hell is my letter??? And formal explanation in response to my complaint.

Questions to you much wiser welfs.......
- I know JC+ are swamped but surely there is a requirement that - at the very least - GL24's are acknowledged in writing and that any reasonable for request for information is responded to???
- £100 special payment doesn't sound enough to me... Do I have any options here.

Side issue - BDC manager explained that as Cl's case was terminated on the computer following supersession - and was an old rules case - the computer will not allow her claim to be reloaded. Manager feels Cl will have to go onto tax credits (and thus loose I.S) as JC+ cannot 'manage' Cl's claim via their computer program.
Surely if Cl is entitled to receive what she is getting now only she can choose to change her claim - I feel it would be unlawful to force her to terminated her claim because of JC+ deficiencies.

Thoughts very welcome.

Many, many thanks.
Chaos

Sticking strictly with the appeal aspect, my advice is to send the appeal DIRECTLY to The Tribunal Service, explaining that JC+ have received it, but have failed to either revise the decision or forward the appeal.

In R(H) 01/07 (aka CH/2812/2005), it was found the relevant authority (e.g. DWP / LA) could be bypassed if circumstances demanded.

Isn't the ADI the Adult Dependency Increase on her Incapacity Benefit? She could claim this for her partner - it was £38.70 in 1998/99. If so, it would have counted as income for IS. These often got missed by IS, especially when the ADI was claimed from a later date (sometimes on the advice of the IB section in the same office!).

This may/may not have affected IS entitlement depending on other factors and changes in circs (e.g. having a partner/ partner moving out).

Without going into whether or not entitlement to IS continues (presumably you would be clearer if they had responded to your letter) you should suggest to your BDC manager that they get a new computer as theirs is obviously 'not fit for purpose' (horrible cliche I know). Entitlement is determined by the regulations not by what their daft computers can and can't do.

"Entitlement is determined by the regulations not by what their daft computers can and can't do."

A point that was made rather strongly in CH/1895/2008 (see para 26).... Although, I don't recall the Judge using the word "daft"....

The Judge may not have used the word "daft" in the judgment but you can bet the word NOT put on paper was quite a lot stronger than that, on the basis of the judges I know! B******s is a well-known technical term in social security law.

GAD,

Thanks for the information on ADI.

In this case the ADI is paid in respect of the Cl's non resident mother. Therefore as per the regs (IS Gen Regs, Sch 9, P 53) non-resident dependants can be disregarded.
When Cl's ADA is disregarded she is eligible for IS.
The problem occured because a DM failed to apply these regs... thanks also for info on how much this would have been worth, I had trouble finding much info at all about ADI

Chaos