I have a client who has been overpaid HB for a period of over 10 years. He allegedly failed to disclose a private pension (and some savings), both of which were eventually discovered during a home visit by the LA.

Client has said he had disclosed the pension when he started receiving it. But during the period of the overpayment he completed about 6 -7 claim forms, all just with his state pension as declared income. So I cannot see how there would have been an official error he did not contribute to, even if his assertion of initial disclosure were to be accepted as true.

LA then make overpayment decision no 1, in which they calculated his private pension wrongly (they treated the quarterly payments as annual, thus giving him a lower weekly income). Client repays this overpayment in full. About 4 weeks later, they make overpayment decision no 2, with the private pension calculated at the correct weekly amount, and with a small tariff income from savings. Client then appealed.

I wonder whether there would be any merit in arguing that OP decision No 1 (with the wrong weekly amount for the private pension) was an official error to which client did not contribute (as they had the correct figure by then), and that the part of the overpayment resulting from that error is not recoverable (provided the client did not reasonably realise that he was still being overpaid).

My view is the argument is self-defeating. Based on the info given, o/p "decision 1" gave one o/p calc, the cause being income / cap not disclosed.

O/p "decision 2" added more to the o/p, but the CAUSE was the failure to disclose income / cap. Neither the first, nor second, decision CAUSED the o/p. In my view, the o/p was not caused by the LA.

Any benefit that continued to be wrongly paid from the date of the first overpayment decision to the time it was corrected will be official error, so you could argue over maybe 4 weeks worth.