I dont know if anyone can help with this. Cl receives savings credit element of PC. The adviser did a benefit check and it appeared the cl should have entitlement to the guarantee element of Pension Credit as well, due to the fact the they should have the SDP included as an additional amount. The adviser contacted the PC centre at Burnley who said that the cl couldnt get SDP as someone was in receipt of CA thus the conditions of entitlement were not met. The cl says they have no knowledge of anyone getting CA for them. The adivser asked the PC centre for further details of who got the CA for looking after him but was told that that information could not be divulged to them or the claimant. Accordingly the claimant has no way of establish what the situation is relating to their guarantee elelment of PC. The client only received their savings credit of the PC 6 months ago so it is unlikely that they had forgotten about someone claiming CA for them.

Any ideas on the beast way to proceed?. One option would be to late appeal the original decision or ask for revision on ignorance of a material fact. Anyone come across this situation?

I've never come across the scenario myself, but think I would contact the Carers Allowance Unit on the client's behalf and point out that if someone is claiming CA, they are certainly not providing 35+ hours care. That should result in the CAU looking into the situation, which will hopefully bring more information to light. In tandem with this, I agree you should request a revision based on ignorance of a material fact. They'll surely have to provide some evidence of why they believe CA is in payment especially if the matter proceeds to appeal.

We have advised the client that is one option that they may wish to progress themselves. However as we dont know who the person claiming is then there is a risk that the client creates an overpayment and possible fraud proceedings against someone who may transpire to be a family member or friend. i.e. we dont know the implcations of that action. Even more strange is that the SDP is included in the person's HB/CTB entitlement.

Yes, I take your point. It's awkward, isn't it? I suppose the SDP is included in the HB/CTB because the client probably ticked 'no' to the question about anyone claiming CA on the HB/CTB form. I suppose it would be safe enough to go ahead with requesting a revision of the PC decisionand see what, if anything, transpires; encourage the client to ask around to see if anyone within their immediate circle knows or remembers anything about the CA claim and hope for the best...I'd never really thought about it before, but being as there is nowhere on the CA form where the disabled person has to sign to confirm the CA claimant is providing the indicated level of care, it wouldn't actually be that difficult for someone to get hold of the disabled person's details and claim CA without their knowledge- rather an alarming prospect, really...

Precisely the risk element appears significant when you think about it, as there is little to stop anyone who has the required details from making the CA claim. This is exacerbated by the fact that CA now does not even require a signature by the claimant if you claim on-line (so I understand). We have discovered a couple of cases like this as often the disabled person doesnt realise the interrelationship between AA/DLA, CA, and PC. Once CA is in payment it appears diificult for the disabled person to do much about it.

I suspect you are correct re the HB/CTB issue.

The client is making investigations around friends and close family, so hopefully we will have new info soon.

If someone actually is getting CA then the claim for CA is a fraudulent claim and to establish whether this is the case your client should write to the Carers Allowance unit at Palatine House in Preston to alert them to this.
If there has been an error it is likely that it will be identified by them, if no error but the claim is fraudulent then the CA unit will contact the investigation section who are likely to contact your client.

In the meantime the best option as far as the PC is concerned is to appeal against the non inclusion of the extra amount for disability. At least the appeal section will look into the situation properly.