my client has an overpayment due to a non-deps change of circumstance.
the non-dep came off JSA, worked for short periods and lived off savings. client was not aware the non-dep had come off JSA and so did not report the change.

didn't come to light until over a year later when JC sent notification to LA regarding my client. they then backdated with highest non-dep ded and o/p created.

have done all the work i can for underlying entitlement but non-dep now in prison so proving difficult.

client wants to appeal o/p as not aware of change in circumstance but also because JC didn't advise LA sooner of non-deps change in circs.

struggling to find any prev decisions that could help with possible appeal.

any ideas more than welcome

Try CH/2324/2003, the LA needs evidence that the person works>16hrs per week before making the highest deduction

CH/0048/2006 may also be useful ( the LA cannot make unrealistic assumptiions as to earnings)

The CDs cited by Stainsby have been taken slightly out of context. If there is NO evidence about the non-dep's circumstances, the LA will be at liberty to draw adverse conclusions.

In the latter CD (CH/0048), there was in fact some evidence that pointed to the circs of the non-dep, so it is easily distinguishable from cases where there is no information / evidence at all.

thanks for all your help.
i did infact provide a statement from the non-dep saying he lived off savings etc so CH/0048 is useful as LA refused to adjust non-dep ded.

The LA should take a reasonable approach to questions of adverse inferences. All to often they just bung on the highest level of NDD where there is no evidence of earnings, irrespective of whatever other information might be available. I believe this was the criticism in CH/0048/2006.

In one case I dealt with, we knew the non-dep worked as an admin assistant in a mechanics garage. On the balance of probability, she did not earn anyway near the amount of the highest level of NDD and even though no other evidence of earnings was available at all, the tribunal accepted that she earned the equivalent of salaries offered for similar jobs and reduced the NDD accordingly.

This does only apply to the periods he was working though, and it sounds like you might have some difficulty narrowing down those periods...