According to the Child Benefit Office the mother had indicated that one of her children, who was 16, was on a course which was only expected to last for one year. The child continued in education but the mother failed to respond to their enquiries so they assumed he would no longer be in education and stopped his child benefit in the September. Child Benefit continued for another child.

Presumably this would be a supersession but on what grounds? And could they assume that the child had finished education and that this was the only change? Could it be argued that rather than make an assumption about the claimant's circumstances they should have suspended benefit on the basis that there was a doubt about entitlement and gone down that route to termination etc?

Just thinking the thing over whilst I work out what the options are but would be interested in people's views.

Surely if the client now advises Child Benefit Office that the child has continued in education, then the Child Benefit will be restored.

If CBO had allowed the Child Benefit to continue, and the child had not continued in relevant education, the client would be hit with an overpayment at some point in the future.

It seems to me they have acted correctly.