... hello all

are local authority (h.b / c.t.b) computer systems linked to hmrc (w.t.c / c.t.c) ones ???

thanx all ...

pete

They are, using the Customer Information System, more commonly known here at least as "CIS". How effient or reliable it is I cannot say...For those who are of a certan age, this was the old "rats" system that was used for contact with JCP.

Oh dear - I definately seem to have become 'a certain age'........

Mairi

thanks mike

got a cl. who has been notified of an overpayment of h.b / c.t.b because she failed to provide evidence of her actual w.t.c award but she did inform them she was going to receive this because a receipt from mbc shows that this info. is going to be submitted at a later date.

mbc are now offering cl. to pay an adpen on top of the £2.300.00 h.b overpayment (which i think is a joke ?), and i am considering going for an anytime revision on the basis that mbc could've prevented the overpayment by using the cis ... wotcha reckon ?

have a good weekend and thanx again.

pete

If they're after an adpen they've done an IUC & are in effect treating it as fraud.

To my way of thinking there's a hell of a difference between fraud and a simple oversight (or forgetfulness). Regardless of the issue you raise (which I'm afraid I can't help with) are they right to be treating it this way? What evidence do they have?

top of the weekend to thee derek !

that is exactly my thinking, should mbc accusing cl. of fraud when there is a receipt which shows that she advised mbc of her pending award of w.t.c (she advised them of c.t.c amount) and on the receipt the mbc member of staff has clearly marked that this evidence will be provided at a later date, but unfortunately it appears my cl. did not due to an oversight on her part, and they have stated that because they actually told mbc re : pending w.t.c award this would suffice.

i fel mbc are being very heavy handed in this instance and i have referred cl. to a solicitor who can advise cl. on whether to accept adpen or not, and depending on what advice solicitor gives cl. depends upon the action i will then take re : anytime revision ...

anyway, thanx for your reply and have a tiptop weekend !

pete

Pete

The fraud issue is obviously a nonsense for the reasons you and Derek have outlined but for the overpayment recoverability case then you should read the decision in Sier v Cambridge City Council.

The original subject of this posting highlights one of the most common reasons as to why claimants are suddenly come face to face with overpayments demands ie, the LA stating that the claimant had failed to notify it of a change in circumstances. In more than a few cases we've seen in past, the LA has known of the ease in which they can access information, but have failed to use it.

In this case the claimant was asked to supply proof of income which they dutifully did in so far as they could, WTC figures not being available at the time. What should have happened next was that the absence to be able to supply those figures should have been noted on the HB Notepad, with a reminder for the DM to follow up with a reminder letter within a reasonable period.

If the claimant if considering appealing, then make sure they obtain screen prints of the notepad for the period in nquestion. If no notes relating to WTC are there then this may be evidence of the LA's inability to record case notes accurately - if there are case notes relating to said WTC, then it makes a mockery of their fraud allegation. l Therefore the LA were clearly aware of the circumstamces appertaining at the time. For them, in the fullness of time then to subsequently arrive at a finding of Fraud, and blithely ask the claimant to pay an adpen together with the alleged overpayment is frankly outrageous. The use of an Adpen normally signifies that they think they have enough evidence to take to the Court if necessary: here they don't seem to be able to prove the Earth is round....A reference to the Ombudsman, after following the LA's complaints procedure, might well prove to be productive.

However, this case does raise another issue. The Regulations relating to the requirement to report all and any changes of circumstanges which may affect your Benefit, were written at a time when there was no electronic contact between LA's on the one hand and the various DWP agencies on the other: this I strongly suspect that this was the reason why the onus was firmly placed on the shoulders of the claimant.

But since those dim and distant days, we have seen the introduction of the original "Rats" link between LA's and JCP, and the CMS link between LA's and Pension Credits. Through the magic of electronic wizardry one can now look up and confirm (or otherwise) a claimants award within a few breathtakingly short minutes. Every few months it seems we are seeing further links being introduced between various agencies under the guise of being anti fraud or anti terrorism mesures, or anti something or other ..........

Given the increase in such methods of confirming a claimants identity/entitlement whatever, do they not make the original Regulations (as referred to several chapters ago) increasingly obselete?. Why should the onus still remain with a claimant when an LA can access the evidence being sought far quicker and more efficiently.?

Sayo

I do hope the solicitor does not advise accepting the adpen. Based on the info. you have given, it would seem the LA has no chance whatsoever of succeeding with a fraud prosecution - which has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt (the criminal test).

top of the week to all

well gee-willikins !
solicitor cl. saw appears to have advised them to accept adpen because if it goes to court and they are successfully prosecuted they will have a criminal record, and i'm flabbergasted ???

not sure what to do now, ie : advise cl. to not accept adpen which i clearly think she should do because of the circs of this matter, or to accept adpen and let it be done ...

any thoughts etc

pete

Do you happen to know whether the Solicitor involved has a detailed knowledge of Welfare rights and HB/CTB regulations in particular, and is working within a Legal Services contract to prove it .......or, (with the greatest of respect for those who subscribe on here and those who are members of NAWRA), is he your average high street soliciter with a CPAG book or two on the shelf .

The advice he appears to be giving would indicate a person who is more at home in the latter group, which doesn't bode well. If you are convinced that your client is really genuine then I don't see what else you can do, other than to advise against. Have you seen the appeal papers as yet? exactly what evidence do they have....................

Sayo

I went into this issue in some detail for a client some while ago. The conclusion was quite clear - the adpen is treated as an admission of fraud. Fair enough, it will not get recorded as a criminal conviction (so far as I know) but in issues such as whether the debt (i.e. the amount of the overpayment plus the 30% adpen) can be written off in a bankruptcy it is fraud and the debt will remain after discharge.

Has the solicitor looked carefully and fully at the evidence? Has he listened to the recording of the IUC? What experience does he/she have of this type of work? Getting answers to these questions might help you decide how to advise your client.