My client' s mum was Appointee (due to client's smi) until Jan 09. Mum and other adults had lived in the property with her until January.

It came to light there were council tax bills going back 3 years as mum hadn't claimed any benefit. LA has now agreed deduction for smi on all 3 years.

Client married in January and they've been awarded full CTB since March.

I appled for CTB to be backdated for max period but LA say it was reasonable to expect her husband to be responsible from January to March. I will accept this if I have to but what about the period prior to this when her mum was her Appointee ?

How can I persuade LA to backdate for max period ? I was hoping for 52 weeks but I assume we're limited to 6 months now?

6 months from when the backdate was requested.
Good cause also has to be continuous, so becasue there was no good cause between January and March, the previous period cant be considered.

Thu 25-Jun-09 12:13 PM by Kevin D

It's unclear whether it is your client who is the claimant, or the husband.

Based on para 4, I'm assuming your client is the clmt (i.e. the one who is regarded as being SMI).

It is critical to distinguish who the claimant is - there is no such thing as joint claimants for HB/CTB.

If the clmt is your client (with SMI), the LA is plain wrong to "...expect..." the partner to be "...responsible..." UNLESS the partner is now an appointee for HB/CTB purposes. Bear in mind that a person is only an appointee for HB/CTB purposes if the LA formally agrees to that status - a person cannot assume appointee status.

Backdating requires a CLAIMANT to show good cause (assuming no formal appointee). If the LA is effectively suggesting the partner has to show good cause, that is simply wrong and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the backdating provision.

CDs that may be of interest:

CH/1791/2004 (backdating - role of non-clmt)
CH/1169/2006 (backdating - role of non-clmt)
CH/3817/2004 (backdating - gc must be shown by clmt, not ptnr + joint claimants not allowed);
CH/3622/2006 (o/p case, but confirms joint claimants not allowed)

Hope this helps.

Yes it's my client who's the claimant and no her partner's not the appointee.

Many thanks for your comments and the CD details Kevin - most helpful.

The recon's been done but decision not changed

I'll press on with an appeal.

Just to echo Kevin's point: A seperate appointeeship by the LA is needed for HB/CTB. The DWP appointeeship does not apply to HB/CTB.

The good casue rules, where there is an appointee, apply to the appointee not the claimant; the capabilities of the appointee are then deemed to be those of the claimant. So it doesn't mattr if the claimant couldn't ahve been expected to claim earlier - what matters is whether the appointee could. Which, if there was no claim, makes me wonder if Mum really was an appointee for the purpose of this benefit. In which case you ARE looking at the claimant's own capability.

Mum definitely was and LA accept this but just didn't bother claiming CTB on client's behalf (house where they all lived was in client's name paid for with damages from RTA)