I have a case where a client on care DLA was admitted into hospital under a MH act section and remained there for about 6 months. DLA were notified after about 7 weeks .....unsure by whom... DLA have asked for the period after 4 weeks back as an overpayment. No problem so far.

The problem is that the clients Income Support due to premiums was not stopped until many months after and the DWP want recovery of the Income Support overpayment.

The question I have is whether there is: when the DLA unit in Blackpool input a suspension of care component on their computers is an AUTOMATIC notification sent the local office paying any Income Support?

There have been a couple of threads on here indicating that a notification may be sent out. However Blackpool DBC are saying a notification is only sent if there is a change in benefit i.e. a decrease or increase but not a suspension or stoppage.

Does anyone know if the DBC information is correct? Any help gratefully received.

"However Blackpool DBC are saying a notification is only sent if there is a change in benefit i.e. a decrease or increase but not a suspension or stoppage."

i find this bizarre.

but i don't know the answer to your question OTMH

Hello,

I don't believe they do inform IS. I have had a client recently who took the exact same thing to tribunal. She lost. The judge agreed that he felt it was unfair but that as per the law it was the claimants responsibility to inform each separate department.

Hinchey v SS (2005) also confirms the same.

We did have a victory of sorts at the tribunal as the decision was made that the client would not be liable in relation to a period when the Local Office was deemed to already be aware of the situation i.e. any automatic notification. In other words the Local Office does not have to be told of information it is already aware of hence it is not the client that would have caused the overpayment from this point on.

However the down side to it was that the Local Office was to ask Blackpool DBC when an automatic notification was sent out. Blackpool DBC replied that no automatic notification is sent when a claim is suspended but is when decreased or increased.

Doesn't really make logical sense to have a system that acts in this way as surely the whole point is to avoid incorrect payments being made!! I just wanted to find out if the information was correct given the potential decision at tribunal would help all those who are hampered by Local Offices simply not acting for months on information already in their possession.

I tried.

That was really what Hinchy siad - you cannot expect that there will be an infallible system of notification between the Dept's various agencies. Even if it was routine to send out notifications, unless it is generated without human intervention people will forget; and computers will malfunction.

Hey

The only way i have got round this sinch Hinchy is when there is combined payments as the payment authority has to be from DLA to IS so they have been notified. It does not seem from your post that was the case, if it is then I would argue it.

I had a similar case last year re verpayments of IS but challenged it another way, as I did not feel that it was worth challenging on the grounds that you mention.
I understand that your case is about a recoverable overpayment on the grounds that there has been a failure to disclose of a material fact . I note that you mention your client was sectioned under the MH Act . What was his /her mental state like at the time and after discharge from hospital ? Was the client wholly incapable of recognising the change of circumstance that would have affected their entitlement to IS ?
In CIS/12302/1996 it mentions the relevance of mental state to 'failure' to disclose . Also, that any mental illness needs to be demonstrated as so severe.
I obtained medical evidence from the psychiatrist and argued this way and won at tribunal . Obviously , it is a matter for a tribunal to decide whether the claimant's own evidence and medical evidence shows such a state of mind .
I hope it will help you .

Tahra

which raises the question whether hinchy would have been decided the same way had the claimants in those cases had no capacity...

Of course B v Sec of State decided that as long as the claimant was aware of the change of circumstances, it did not matter if his mental state prevented him understanding the need to make disclosure, as long as disclosure of thie particular change had been clearly and unambiguously required of him. So the mental state is only relevant to whether disclosure is required if, as Claire says, there is not even the capacity to realise what has happened.

This is by no means impossible. My mother had bipolar disorder, and was never actually sectioned but was admitted as an emergency several times in her manic phase (once freaking out at her regular outpatients appointment). She never ahd any recollection of these periods afterwards and it is quite likely she had no idea where she was for the first few days at least, before she began to come down.

B v sec of state was before the mental capacity act 2005, i think, and one has to wonder whether that will change anything.

and given that, i would think there has to be an argument that in that sort of situation the Sec of State should appoint someone to deal with the affairs of such a person ...

oh i like that thought!