Hmmm. Based on the info stated, if I was the decision maker, I would also have refused backdating. The 6 month time limit is absolute (no discretion) and, ignoring correspondence/bills is normally not a good thing - especially without making enquiries.
On the face of it, the LA is correct that HB/CTB are not "linked" and ongoing entitlement to one benefit does not engage the other benefit automatically. In other words, where a person is not entitled to one benefit, a new claim must be made for that benefit to restart.
BUT...., there is potentially more than one way to skin a cat. Was the clmt on CTB immediately before becoming a student? If so, did the LA end CTB entitlement in accordance with benefits legislation? If not, it may well be possible to argue that the legal status of CTB is such it is still in existence (irrespective of physical adjuctments to accounts). If THAT was to be correct, it could be argued the LA can treat the "student period" as a change of circs that can be dealt with as a "closed period supersession"; in other words, a retrospective period of nil entitlement doesn't end a claim if there is current entitlement and it is ongoing.
Just to be clear, I am personally less than convinced that closed period supersessions are lawful for HB/CTB, but there are many (the majority) who suggest otherwise.
In order to establish whether the LA ended an earlier CTB award correctly, my advice is to use the backdating appeal as a vehicle on which to get the info relating to the earlier process.
|