Clients are a couple, husband in receipt of DLA MRC since 2006. Wife claimed Carer's Allowance from around the same time and received a carer premium on IS. Wife awarded MRC May 2008 and daughter (who lives elsewhere) claimed CA from June 2008.

IS sent clients an IS10 which husband signed in May 2008 saying NO ONE was claiming CA for looking after either of them. This was incorrect as wife was claiming at that time and they did not inform IS when the daughter was awarded CA. Clients have poor understanding of forms etc.

They now have an overpayment of 22 weeks' worth of SDP (single).

The reasons given for the overpayment are that the husband did not declare that the wife was in receipt of CA. This is incorrect because they were aware of the wife's entitlement and were paying a carer premium from 2006. In fact the reason appears to be that they were not aware that the daughter was claiming. This would explain why they paid only 1 SDP and not 2, which would have been the case if they had accepted the info on the IS10 as correct.

I was wondering about arguing that the client's errors on the IS10 did not cause the overpayment

1) if there is an automatic computer interface between CA and IS - is there? and

2) if they had taken the info on the IS10 as correct, they would have paid 2 SDPs. As it was clear that client had made a mistake, was there a duty for the DM to make more enquiries?

They have now stopped both CA claims and claimed 2 SDPs.

It is going to matter on what basis they are claiming recoverability - misrepresentation on the IS10 or failure to disclose the daughter's CA claim. Appeal, get the papers, and see - the DMC won't know.

I can see a respectable argument against misrepresentation - that there was a misrepresentation but the overpayment was not made in consequence of it.

On failure to disclose I doubt whether CA can be held to account for failing to tell IS about a CA claim by a third party. In fact the CA claim pack doesn't ask anything about the disabled person's benefits (apart from DLA) so they couldn't have done so. On the other hand one of the parents would normally have to have counter-signed the daughter's CA claim, so they would have known about it.

However worth checking what notices parents received about their IS and what changes they were told to notify - if JCP can't show an explicit instruction to disclose any CA claim by a third party, under Reg.32(1A)C+P Regs, then, under 32(1B), it becomes a question whether parents could reasonably be expected to know that payment of CA to the daughter would affect their IS - which looks well arguable.

Richard Atkinson