we have a tenant that was transferred to a new property last may. his HB claim ended. there was a lot of confusion at HB as to whether he had been decanted (he was) or transferred. he isnt returning to the original property and a new tenancy was made for him at the 2nd property

a new claim form was sent to him by HB via his support organisation in november, but was not completed and returned. the new claim has still not been made

he has been sectioned several times during this period and attempts have been made to visit him at home with his support workers to complete claim form but he refused to allow access to his property

HB accept he has mental health problems so i think a backdate request will be successful. however we cant get him to sign a new HB claim form to make a claim and to request the backdate

any ideas? anyhting we can do to help him

it has been agreed that his arrears from may to november will be cancelled as we, the landlord were partly to blame for not fully alerting HB that it was a decant and not a straight transfer. but from november to date the tenant, nor his support workers have not completed sent claim forms

Can you act on his behalf? If gives you a consent to deal with his benefits will be better.
On the HB form there is a part "Forms filled n be someone other than the person claiming" check with HB department they may have some ideas.

Regards,
Antonina

There is no requirement under regulation 83 of the HB Regulations for a claim form to be signed. The LA only requires sufficient information for that claim to be determined. The claim is not defective merely through lack of a signature. However, the LA is entitled to satisfy itself that the claim is not fraudulently made and is entitled to satisfy itself of the identity of the claimant.

A signature by itself does not necessarily do that because the LA usually does not have anything to compare that signature to in order to verify the claimant’s identity. The LA can establish those things by other means and should not fetter its discretion in individual cases but try to work with the claimant and his support workers to take things forward. An appointeeship, for example, as has been suggested.

Interestingly, the LA in CH/1681/2004 argued before the commissioner that there was a valid claim even thought the claim form had not been signed. This was because it was in its interest to do so in order (so it thought) to recover an overpayment. The commissioner decided that an overpayment could be recovered whether the claim was signed or not and thus did not have to decide the issue of whether an unsigned claim form was valid or not.

At least on these facts you should be able to get him maximum backdating once he HAS claimed - unless there's an argument the support team have let him down. I'd prefer not to go there!

I broadly agree with most of the above. However, a couple of observations.

Claiming / signatures: Nevip is quite right; a signature is not a legal requirement in the DIRECT sense. However, it could be argued that it is a reasonable requirement as part of the completion of a claim form. As such, the absence of a signature *could* result in the LA deciding the claim is defective. In any case, the LA is entitled to be satisfied the claim has actually been made by THE CLAIMANT; not a third party (subject to "appointee" status).

Appointee status: In the circumstances described, I would be VERY wary about seeking formal appointee status. If that was to occur, the appointee would have full responsibility for the claim etc. There are two concerns I would have:

1) backdating would depend on the actions of a third party; not the clmt. Based on the info given, the health of the clmt is such that any claim for backdating is more or less a slam-dunk in terms of "good cause". BUT, if there was a formal appointee, "good cause" would be attributable to the appointee - potentially making it a much harder hurdle to cross.

2) subsequent overpayments: The clmt's health means it would be harder for a LA to argue recoverability in the event of LA error O/Ps - so long as there was not an appointee. From the flip side, would a Support Worker really want to leave themselves open to the possibility of being a target for o/p recovery?

One possibility *may* be for a 3rd party to apply for appointee status purely to get a claim made and to then immediately relinquish "appointee" status (4 weeks notice needed). When completing the form, the "appointee" would be well advised to amend the declaration and/or clearly state that the answers given are based on the the information and evidence available AND that it is correct "..TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE...".

I regularly advise any 3rd party assisting with form completion to ensure that phrase exists and, where not appointees, to sign the "form completed by" section with the additional words "strictly as a scribe".

You say his HB claim ended. Did he move out of the LA area?

The point is that a claim ends the moment a decision is made. The decision may then result in an award. An award can end on supersession, but it can also be reinstated by revising the (superseding) decision.

If he is still living in the LA's area, a new claim is not required.

If he moved out of the area, its arguable that the two LA's could still get round the problem by agreeing that one could carry out the functions of the other in this case, and so the old award could still be resurrected.

many thanks for the advice given so far. a few more facts around this case.

in june 08 HB cancelled his claim because they were given notice (by landlord) that he no longer lived at original address. in july 08 HB suspended claim and a letter sent to his last known address (as they did not know his new address). no reply was recived and so claim was cancelled

HB state "HB cancellation was correct. that mr x was no longer occupying the property is a notifiable change of circumstances"

i feel landlord have let claimant down somewhat as they didnt originally notify HB that him leaving the property was due to a decant while original adress had work dont on it

we still havent managed to get a new claim made

The so called cancellation can be revised due to ignorance of or a mistake as to a material fact, but I think you are up against an awkward HB dept and so you need to become equally awkward

In any case, the Council should first of all consider whether or not a new claim should be dealt with as an application for revision rather than a claim as such (see for example CH/3009/2002, / CIS/701/1993, R(SB)9/84, R(I)11/62), so the Council are not in my view carrying out the decision making process properly.

You could ask to become an appointee (I would advise that your organisation does this and applies to be a corporate appointee, its much safer than letting an individual do it).

Once you are an appointee, ask for a statment of reasons for the "cancellation".

You can then appeal the decision, provided you do it within 14 days of the Council providing the statment of reasons.

Depending on ALL of the facts, CH/1602/2008 *may* be helpful.

A copy of this UTD will be sent to Rightsnet.

cheers kevin .... here we go -

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/CH_1602_2008.doc

thanks a lot for your advice and ideas, it's really helped. i'll get onto this tomorrow