past caring 1
Welfare Benefits Casework Supervisor, Cambridge House Law Centre, London SE5
Member since 09th Oct 2007
|
Friday afternoon amusement.....
Fri 07-Mar-08 02:57 PM |
Just seen a very confused client who is struggling to come to terms with a decision that she has been overpaid HB to the tune of £460 and that this is recoverable. She has already appealed and already has a hearing date in April but appears confused about her grounds of appeal and confused about the hearing.
Her confusion, however, is nothing to that of the authority whose submission sits in front of me.....
They concede that on 19/10/07 my client notified them of the change in circumstance (an increase in wages from 18/10/07) that led to the overpayment but argue that the period from 19/10/07 to 18/11/07 when the claim was not re-assessed in light of the new information should be found to be one where official error did not occur, following Commissioner Jacobs in CH/0858/06 at para 20.
"20. The local authority was not aware of the increase in the claimant’s earnings until she mentioned it at the visit on 19 April; it took it into account on 13 May. That was less than a month later. Delay can be an official error. However, Ms Jackson argued that the local authority had taken a reasonable time to amend the claimant’s award. I accept that submission. I note that a decision on a claim must be made within 14 days or as soon as reasonably practicable thereafter: regulation 76(3) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987. There is no provision for decisions on supersession. Perhaps more leeway is appropriate once an award has been made than on an initial claim. But even applying the standard in regulation 76(3), I consider that the local authority acted sufficiently promptly to avoid an official error."
And, of course, if no official error, the overpayment is recoverable.
They do, however, make a further concession in admitting official error for the period from 19/11/07 to 10/12/07, the date when they did get around to re-assessing the claim. The overpayment for this is also nevertheless recoverable, in their view, because my client could reasonably have realised that she was being overpaid.
Which is all well and good - but for their failure to explain quite how all this hangs together when their own submission repeatedly refers to the fact that payment of benefit was suspended on 19/10/07 when my client notified them of the wage increase. They aren't too keen, either, on dealing with issue of quite why it was that the supposed "re-assessment" of 10/12/07 failed to take account of the increase in wages they'd been informed of - and that this failure only came to light when my client received the new determination/notice of lifting of suspension and promptly got on the blower to them.....
|