When trying to get IS reinstated for a client the local SSO say that the IS claim was closed because she did not contact them within 1 month of them stopping payments (no explanation as to why they stopped payments)...
Apparantly this shows she does not need benefit. (Client actually went to the post office daily looking for the order book, but of course there is no record of that at the SSO).
They are willing to reinstate for the whole period, with us having provided a statement from the client saying what she was living on. ("short term family loans"). So now there is a risk of this being seen as income, and lengthy appeals etc.
This has to be one of the most twisted pieces of reasoning I've heard from the DWP. It seems familar as a strategy I have heard of, but not experienced directly, but I may be thinking of the NASS arguments.
So how often are they stopping benefit for no reason, then using this to show a claim should be closed ?

I seem to have gotten a little lost here - are you saying that the I/S just stopped, without a notification letter being sent to client etc? and then DWP said that the fact client hadn't had any money for a month proved she didn't need it?

If there were no changes of circs which would cause her entitlement to be reviewed, and therefore no valid Decision, then DWP have no grounds merely to say that they will very generously reinstate for the whole period - they have little choice but to do so - as I see it they cannot insist on making it conditional either.

If the scenario is as I understand it above, and your'e sure there's nothing else in the closet you don't know about, then a firmly written letter to the Customer Services Manager is in order - followed up by one to the local MP if no response within 7 to 10 days.

They notified when they closed the claim, but they closed the claim because when no payment was paid for 4 weeks the client did not contact them.
The original non-payment is unexplained, but they accept that there was a valid claim at the time. This seems to have been an error.
We are trying to get more info. We're fairly confident of getting the money but it just seems such bizarre reasoning.

Whatever the reason, the normal revision/supersession rules apply. They had no reason to stop the benefit, They did not make any vaid superssion, and so therefore they must reinstate.

Stainsby and Mike are absolutely right. I get hacked off at the department (and LA's for that matter) still using language like 'closing claims'.

Under the SS Act 1998 a claim ceases to subsist once a decision is made on it. All that continues to exist is a decision and unless a ground can be identified for superseding or revising that decision then that decision still stands in law and benefit must be re-instated immediately and unconditionally.

Turns out the client has been failing to respond to correspondence.
They are re-instating.
I just don't know why they didn't explain properly in the first place. But this one seems to be 80% caused by the client.

I'll probably face disciplinaries for this but the standard letters we have to send out are also partly to blame.
There is so little scope (reduction of local office typing services being main culprit) for more personalised letters to be sent to customers)

The standard letters are a bit confusing to say the least, but in this case I phoned up and asked...
What always gets me is the standard letters the local offices send out. I remember this from claiming JSA myself, and once getting three contradicting letters in one day. When I asked the Jobcentre no-one there could understand them either. The only explanation being that they are produced by central computers and the local office can only decide to send them or not. And they won't not send them in case they are stopping people getting important information...
And I still tell clients that if they don't understand a letter they can ask at the offices... Though the alternative is people who just ignore letters because they don't understand them, which is I think the actual cause of problems in this case.
Hopefully no disciplinary action. Surely its whistleblowing - someone has to say these things. (attempts at slight humourous edge work so badly in email etc.)
Plus I think this whole thread is letting out the big adviser secret. Sometimes we get all indignant at the DWP or Local Authority and it turns out to be the fault of our client all along.