My college has come up with one I carnt get my head around.

Clent working claiming TC then has a breackdown and ends up in hospital on release from hospital claimed IS but didnt inform tax credits she had lost her job. Employer unable to keep job open. IS write to client to say she isnt entitled to IS as income from WTC too mutch. Didnt tell client to withdraw claim for WTC client continued to get WTC for 6 months. Consequent WTC overpayment Being recoved so client has 6 month period nill income my collegue has asked for IS backdate which has been refused on the grounds that she was reciving WTC income? But this being recovered out of clients CTC?

Any Ideas?

Phil

I can't see any arguement that IS are at fault or have any liability so the focus should be on the tax credit.

Was the employer paying SSP? If so, client would (or should) have been treated as being in work for WTC so that might shorten the length of the overpayment if not already taken into account. I take it that the phrase "employer unable to keep job open" means the client was dismissed. Perhaps there's an unfair dismissal and/or disability discrimination issue to be considered? If the employer was seeking to avoid paying SSP they might still be liable, in which case it's possible that WTC entitlement could continue (bit of a long shot...).

Client could also ask for discretionary non-recovery of WTC overpayment and be prepared to complain when the request is refused. The guidance on non-recovery states that difficult personal circumstances should be taken into account when assessing non-recovery.

GL

What about a situation where client lost her job 6/3/07 and went for appointment at JC+ 12/3/07. While she was there,she watched the interviewer "cancel" her WTC on the computer but TCO say they were not informed until 27/3/07. They are recovering back to 6/3/07 by deductions from CTC but IS will not pay before 29/3/07 as she was in receipt of WTC, although she had no entitlement. She just missed out on the 4-week run-on. Could we argue that JC+ knew she had no entitlement and that the delay in informing TCO was down to them?

I think that argument should be used for disputing recovery of the TC overpayment. The COP 26 referrs to errors by other government departments - although they might return argue that is was up to claimant to notify them of the change, not the JC+.

I don't have time to check the IS income regs right now, but I don't think that the retrospective withdrawal of WTC means that the income support would become payable on a revision.

In this situation if TCO don't agree to write off the overpayment then I would agree that a complaint might exist against the JC+ as they should have advised client to contact CTO immediately.