ok this looks like archaic legislation to me and the DM couldn't give me the reg it relates to. Cl has had his Incapacity Benefit stopped immediately The reason given is
"K. O. is disqualified for receiving Incapacity Benefit from 17.02.06. This is because he failed without good cause to observe the rule that he should not be absent from his place of residence without leaving word where he may be found"
Found three old CD's R(S) 6/55 and R(S)1/87 and R(S)7/83 (cant find copies)which state the onus is on the National Insurance Officer to prove that cl did not have good cause to observe the rule of behaviour.
DM who made the decision stated it was made because of a call to the Benefit Fraud Hotline saying cl was not living at the address he is claiming from. DM wants him to prove that he lives at the address he is claiming from so has disqualified him from receiving benefit until he removes the "doubt about his address".

Help!!

R(S)1/87 is on the 'Commissioners decisions on rightsnet' page ........

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/cgi-bin/publisher/display.cgi?1138-3104-29493+swopshop

I found R(S)1/87 on rightsnet but it's just coming up as a blank page for me, shawn.

Try this link for pdf copy of R(S) 1/87.

Cheers for that Paul. Tracked down the current legislation relating to failure to leave word. Interesting that the commentary in Bonner states the reg is in situ to penalise those who deliberately seek to avoid the BA visitng officers and that "it will only be invoked where visits have already proved ineffective". No one called at my cl's home it was just a call to the Benefit Fraud Line.

Will make a point of telling Incap claimants that they have a duty to leave word with someone when they go out!

Am I going senile? The onus is not on the claimant once benefit is legitimately in payment to prove that he lives at that address but fot the DWP to prove that he doesn't. That means, surely, confronting the claimant with some evidence, other than mere hearsay, that he is living elsewhere. Then, and only then, does the burden shift to the claimant to provide some rebuttal evidence.

We might be slowly walking into a police state but we are not there yet!

too bad the D-M didn't look up the legislation she used - she might have noticed the disqualification can't exceed 6 weeks.

of course, living at a different address doesn't mean that he is automatically cured, and entitlement to IB isn't conditional on residence, so i guess this gem was dug up as a substitute for benefit suspension, which, going on the D-M's thinking above, is what is likely to have happened if it had been IS not IB in payment... call to the hotline automatically = evidence of fraud!!!!!!! Client has a right of appeal...they won't like that... what's the point of regulations if they can't use them to stop payments of benefit!! the burden of proof is on the D-M and now they'll have to establish a fact or two to add to their use of reg. 18. how bloody inconvenient is that!

sometimes it feels as if we have broken into a gallop...

jj

Not wishing to appear to be difficult, but if you are a single claimant, living in a flat or bedsit, with whom are you supposed to leave word every time you go out? The neighbours, who may be tempted to keep a closer eye on your property than you would like? Or do you phone the local JCP office or even the call centre - that'll confuse them.

I can't recall whether or not a claimant is actually made aware in writing of this quaint piece of law, but it seems perverse that often we cannot get through to JCP on the telephone for hours at a time, whilst they see no problem in suspending a person's benefit because they have the temerity to go out without asking permission first........

"sometimes it feels as if we have broken into a gallop"...

Anyone who has any lingering doubts that we are heading towards a police state should take a long hard look at some of the legislation that has been placed on the statute book in the past couple of years. All that remians to be done is for a enterprising PM to get the constitution changed to do away with the need for elections every four/five years - in the interests of national security of course.

I'm going to be out of the office now for as long as it takes to go to the doughnut shop.

Thought I'd better leave word...

Make sure you come back now!

Wrote a letter of complaint to JCP about decision makers twisting regulations to fit the punishment they want to mete out. Awaiting reply....but not holding my breath!

There's nothing about leaving word on return....so I guess if someone goes out for a loaf of bread and doesnt get back for 4 months, that's ok with the JCP!! lol

On a more serious note, this legislation can't be used against the homeless and living alone would be "good cause" for not leaving word.

I suppose the person could always have a word with themselves!

Not seen the Reg in question is it primary legislation or secondary.If secondary surely it is in breach of HRA.Not sure which article without looking it up(to tired to do this at present) but it the one that says that you a right to private family life etc. Someone at there will know please let us know.

SS(IfW)(General)Regs 1995 Reg.18(1)(c)(ii) is the reg and it reads

Reg 18 (1)Paragraph (2) applies where a person -
(c)fails without good cause to observe any of the following rules of behaviour namely -
(ii) not to be absent from his place of residence without leaving word he may be found.
(2) a preson referred to in paragraph (1) shall -
(a) if he is entitled to incapacity benefit be disqualified for receiving that benefit or allowance;
for such period not exceeding 6 weeks as the S of S may determine.

That's the offending reg, but as I said the DM didnt include the "6 weeks" in the decision.

In order for people to be able to comply with the above regs, (particularly single people), what procedures do local JCP offices have in place to take in the required information and record it on the claimants file? A apecial form? what number?

There's no point in resurrecting old legislation if there are no laid down procedures for a claimant to follow when he wants to report the fact that he is going to visit an old friend for tea and crumpet, and may be gone some time..........

Exactly! In 20 yrs I havent come across this bit of legislation until now. It's been dragged up by a DM who wants to impress the Fraud Team, applied without contacting the cl or his sister (with whom he shares a house)or stipulating the 6 weeks, so applied incorrectly.... as I said in an earlier post I have written to the JCP involved.

While I share the sentiments of those who have made serious contributions to this thread, it is worth reading the commentary to the reg. The commentary states that the rule "is designed to penalise those who deliberately seek to avoid the Benefits Agency's visiting officers who may call as part of the Agency's control mechanisms. It will only be invoked where visits have already proved ineffective...."

Now thats the ideal. We out here on the ground know the reality. As Margie indicates the reg seems to allow a gung ho DM an umbrella to chuck his/her weight around. Apart from pointing out the above policy intention in any appeal, where this happens it would be worth writing to the office manager pointing the policy intention out and establishing what steps were previously taken to contact the claimant and what information was conveyed to the claimant for him/her to be available at a certain date and time to be contacted/visited. Maybe, then, the manager can take steps to ensure that the spirit of the reg is being followed and correct procedures were in operation.

The reg does not, in my view, provide a power for the Department to demand a claimant leave word with someone every time they pop out for 5 minutes.

i had to search for the reg too. i have no experience of the reg ever being used, even in the days of sickness benefit. it is pretty obsolete - sick visits used to be carried out as a control, in the alternative to referrals to medical officers, depending on the incapacity. PCA's are across the board now, and SVs are not generally carried out. it's a decision worthy of northwiltshire's favourite D-M, they must be cloning them...

What kind of doughnut did you get Gerry?

Gerry didn't leave word~!! lol

Actually, I fell through the hole in the doughnut and found myself in a parallel universe, where benefit regs are properly understood and applied by the administration, where the few appeals that take place are attended by a PO, where York City play in the Premier League...

Then I woke up and came to work.

There's no real contest between a ring and a jam doughnut for me - it's the jam one every time, and no problems with those pesky parralel universes either.

You know you're going to miss us back over on our side, 'po' is the German for arse, and how are you going to afford the entrance prices on your wages?!

(I'm not meaning to be frivolous, but this thread is so very frightening, and even more so because it is not very surprising)

Just had call from cl involved. His Incap is back in payment and backdated! He found out when he went to the Post Office and the money had been paid in. I rang the JCP who confirm claim is active again and the decision was reversed on 3rd March 2006. They didnt write to the cl to let him know nor have they answered the points raised in my letter of 1st March. So I guess I just wait the 20 days they say it takes them to respond to correspondence and take it from there.

Doesn't the fact that they couldn't give a toss about notifying you or the claimant speak volumes about the kind of system we're having to deal with now. Money reinstated so what the hell have you got to complain about seems to be the message. Nevip made the comment about a police state and I agree totally with it. Administrative scripts and computer screens determine eligibility these days and sod the law and regs. The problem with the remote decision making taking place is the levels of discretion that seem to be creeping in to it and the powers the officers are giving themselves. Our social services contacted to say a claimant in supported accomodation was visited by a VO and because he couldn't complete a form the VO has decided that his 80 year old has to be the appointee. Father doesn't want any of it but has been told he has to do it!!!. The carers,social worker and the home are going ape. A senior official in the DWP was contacted and replied thats how its going to be. Like hell.

The biggest worry is that this isn't uncommon anymore. Its happening daily and the scale of the screwups just keep getting bigger.

Maybe Rightsnet could set up a forum called Rants where we can all record details of the way the bureaucrats are fouling it all up.

yours is not to reason why.
yours is only to comply.