Looking for some guidance on this case. Client has been cliaming IB 2005, application was also made for DLA this was awarded and clients wife started to get CA. Depart now has issued an overpayment for the adult addition. Client maintains that department was told by phone neither client or department has record of the call. The client did get an award letter some time ago, with a breakdown of the IB payment, the letter does not itemise AD but from looking at the amount in an adviser knowledge of the benefit system, it is clear that this is added in. As far as the client was concerned, from this letter there was no AD and felt that they had discharged duty to tell department. Department, state the client should have been aware that this was in payment because of the figures on the letter. Does any one have any words of wisdom or know of any CM that could help me out with this case. Could lack of detailed knowledge of the benefit system be grounds to aruge?

The duty to disclose is derived from Regulation 32 (1A) and (1B)of the Social security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 as amended. The Regulations provide:

“Information to be given and changes to be notified
32.—(1) Except in the case of a jobseeker’s allowance, every beneficiary and every person by whom, or on whose behalf, sums by way of benefit are receivable shall furnish in such manner and at such times as the Secretary of State may determine such information or evidence as the Secretary of State may require for determining whether a decision on the award of benefit should be revised under section 9 of the Social Security Act 1998 or superseded under section 10 of that Act.
(1A) Every beneficiary and every person by whom, or on whose behalf, sums by way of benefit are receivable shall furnish in such manner and at such times as the Secretary of State may determine such information or evidence as the Secretary of State may require in connection with payment of the benefit claimed or awarded.
(1B) Except in the case of a jobseeker’s allowance, every beneficiary and every person by whom or on whose behalf sums by way of benefit are receivable shall notify the Secretary of State of any change of circumstances which he might reasonably be expected to know might affect–
(a) the continuance of entitlement to benefit; or
(b) the payment of the benefit,
as soon as reasonably practicable after the change occurs by giving notice of the change to the appropriate office"

The provisions were considered in B v Secretary of State for work and Pensions (reported as R(IS)9/06,) and Hooper v Secratary of State for Work and Pensions (reported as R(IB)4/07).

The duty to disclose is in 2 parts, under Reg 32(1A), the duty is to give whatever information the secretary of state asks for. The claimants capacity to understand the significance of that information is not relevant to the question of failure to disclose (see B), but the secretary of state's requirements must be made clear and unambiguous to the claimant (Hooper)

The duty under Regulation 32(1B) only extends to dislcosure of circumstannces that the claimant might reasonably be expected to know might affect his entitlment.

The test under Reg 32(1B) is far more subjective and the claimant knowledge of the benefits sysstem must be taken into account in order to determine whther or not he failed in his duty to disclose.

Was the claimant in the present case issued with any instructions as to what he needed to disclose?