Hi all, rather unusual query.
Client is trying to get a large backpayment of benefit for his severely disabled child (now in his twenties) who could have claimed IB(Y) when he was sixteen but didn't actually do so. The parents did not claim anything other than CA and CB for themselves and DLA for the child. They have recently claimed ESA(Y) for the child succesfully but say they are entitled to a backdate of IB(Y) as no one informed them they could make the claim.

Does anyone know of any legal obligation on the DWP to seek out potential claimants and inform them they could claim, although DLA clearly knew about the child and his disabilities the parents say they were never at any point advised to consider any other claims.

I don't have any references, but as far as I know there is no statutory duty for the DWP to publicise anything. As far as appeals for backdating go, tribunals are limited to the statutory provisions which, for IS and IB, are three months, and it is settled that ignorance of one's rights is not good cause anyway (which is not required for IB/ESA).

It think that in order for your client to get anywhere, he would have to show some positive misadvice or misinformation by the department, which might rise to extra-statutory payments.

Thank you Tony, you have confirmed what I have always felt to be the case but it was good to know that nothing had sneaked in when I wasn't paying attention!

Pete.

Just to add to what Tony has said, for the sake of completeness really, the original framework document between the Department and the original executive agency (The Benefits Agency), and replicated in subsequent agreements with later executive agencies such as jobcentreplus, did lay down a requirement to publicize benefits and how to qualify for them.

This, then, would allow for claims for financial loss against the agencies if they fell far short of those requirements but I agree in part with Tony's conclusion and say that the obligations imposed by the agreements cited above does not oblige the agencies to "search out" individuals in receipt of one benefit and 'invite them in' for a general benefit check.

Where I agree in part with Tony is that in addition to misadvice or misinformation I would add substantial neglect, an area I have used successfully in the past.