Somewhere on Rightsnet is a CD dealing with the question of the difference between evidence of something being done by DWP (eg a leaflet issued or a supersession carried out) as opposed to an assertion by them that they did so.

Any offers much appreciated,. Have tried searching.

Thanks

Are you thinking of CIB/4012/2004 which concerned good cause for failure to attend a medical? Deputy Commissioner Mark stated 'I am not clear that a statement that a document has been issued on a particular date is evidence that it was posted on that date.'

There was one or two in relation to overpayments to do with when and when not the person had been properly told of the changes that must be disclosed. There was another that dealt with whether claimants 'must' or 'should' report changes.

Unfortunately, CD numbers are not my memory's favourite fodder!! Sorry...

Tony, you are thinking of two cases from a higher level than the Commissioners or Upper Tribunal.

The one about failure to disclose is B v SoS for Work and Pensions <2005> EWCA Civ 929. This was the case that confirmed that as long as a person ahs been placed under an obligation to disclose a particular tyrpe of event, any overpayment resulting from a failure to disclose is recoverable, even if the claimant did not understand (as B herself who had learning difficulties) the importance of the instruction. However it was essential that a clear and unambiguous instruction about that particular change must have been given, or the duty did not arise, and it wa up to DWP to prove that such an insruction HAD been given.

The one about the difference between "you should tell us" and "you must tell us" is very much a variation on that point, since it turned on whether the use of the word "should" imported an unambiguous instruction, or merely a recomendation. This is another Court of Appeal Case - SoS for Work and Pensions v Hooper <2007> EWCA Civ 495; and the Court of Appeal said that "should" did not constitute a clear and unambiguous instruction.

PS: but i don't think either of these is what Neil is thinking of.

Mon 09-Nov-09 05:07 PM by Kevin D

Hmmm...

CSB/0347/1983 ?
www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/CSB_347_1983.pdf

Also:

CSIS/0345/2004 - UTD site

CH/3801/2008?

Thanks everyone, these are what I'm after. Have also found a few others which touch on the subject: R(IS) 1/05, CIS/1462/2006 (need for coherent evidence) and CPC/1872/2007 ( DWP/LA bear burden of proof to disentitle and must adduce evidence)