I am wondering if someone can possibly assist me.

Our LA are currently requesting Doctor letters, whenever clients are asking for HB to be backdated on medical grounds.

Now, I accept the LA does have an obligation to verify information given to prevent fraudulent claims. I don't accept, however, that verification requires clients to corroborate the information they are submitting, as this would appear to be raising the standard clients are expected to meet in discharging their burden of proof.

Possibly, someone can assist me by suggesting some decisions that look at what the standard of proof is on clients when trying to show they had "just cause" in being late to make an application.

cheers alan

I am asked the same request by my local housing benefit office. When medical information is provided, then there is never a problem with the good cause backdate. I am also assisted in this by the G.P.s in this area, who will readliy provide information, especially in matters of mental health problems. Most of the clients whoose good cause is based upon medical problems, will more than likely have some form of disability benefit. This can be used to prove medical conditions if the G.P. will not provide a letter.

My advice is to ask the LA whether or not they are willing to pay the GP's fee for proving such information (its not in their NHS contract so GP's can legitimately refuse or charge as a private matter)

I would also refer the LA to a Department of Health document "Reducing GP Paperwork" whhich was very critcal of unnecessary demands on GP's in this area.

I also point to classic Commissioners Decisions R(I)2/51 and R(SB)33/85 (available on Rightsnet) where it was held that there is no need fo corroboration in English Law, and the claimants word can and should be accepted unless there was a good reason not to

I recognise that Scottish law is different, but I do not see why the burden of proof in Scotland for benefit puropses should be any different.

I forget the reference at the moment, but there is at leat one Northern Ireland Decision that follows the English ones

NI decisions following R(I)2/51 inlcude R2/85(II), C5/99(II), and to a lesser extent C11/00-01(IB)

Thanks very much people.

I think it's obvious whenever there is additional corroborative evidence that it will be easier for the client to show on the balance of probabilities they had "good Cause".

It is clear, however, there is no requirement for corroborative evidence and the client's evidence on it's own could be sufficient and should be sufficient for the decision-maker to make a finding of fact.

Again cheers

Alan