I have just been informed that a LA has decided to begin charging CTB/HB recipients a £70 fee for adminstration charges if a claimant is found to have failed to notify a change in circumstances.The example they are hanging their hat on is when a person receiving single person discount and fails to notify of the change circumstances when another person moves in etc.

I am being informed that is being discussed at several LA's throughout the County. Surely this cannot be just and fair.
When a person has been found to have failed to notify they are hit with an overpayment decision and in some cases legal action via the courts for fraud incurring court costs etc and then on top of that expected to pay an equivalent fine by the local authority of £70. The LA's are already rewarded by Govt for any successful fraud claims.

I cannot see any difference in adminstratuion costs incurred by the Local Authority. Any views or comments would be very welcome.

I have heard of some authoritys including on the ctax bill a "threat" of £50 surcharge for not notifying changes eg. single person occupancy.

I've never seen the so called threat actually implemented however...

There may be some ctax legislation backing this up, but, ahem, not my field.

Fri 15-Jan-10 04:22 PM by Kevin D

Is this really correct and in context?

I'll respond on the basis it is, but I would be astonished if it is.

In short, I would be even more astonished if such an approach would be at all lawful.

In non-fraud cases, there is simply no provision whatsoever to allow charges to claimants for processing HB/CTB claims and/or subsequent changes in circumstances. It is simply a legal administrative duty that LAs are REQUIRED to do. End.

If this is in the context of fraud cases, again, I can't see any legal basis for it at all. On the "civil" side, the same law applies as for non-fraud cases. On the criminal side, to the best of my understanding, the DWP/LA cannot impose any costs over and above what the Court has ordered. Obviously AdPens can be charged, but those don't reach Court in any case. And AdPens are already limited by law.

There is one scenario that crosses my mind, but this is strictly speculation. I wonder of LAs are *trying* to create a barrier in prosecution cases where an expert witness identifies shedloads of errors in the context of the "civil" aspects, such that the criminal prosecution is undermined; sometimes terminally. Perhaps the LAs are trying to suggest (entirely wrongly) that such errors in fraud cases are subject to different rules. They are not. Fraud proceedings do not in any way change, or negate, a claimants rights to have benefit entitlement assessed in accordance with benefits legislation. I am unaware of any legal basis whatsoever on which a LA can turn round and say "It's fraud, we don't need to worry about the errors identified by the expert and, if you want them done, that'll be £70 please".

Perhaps if those particular LAs spent as much time trying to correctly determine benefit in the first place as they do, apparently, on meetings discussing this sort of posturing and vacuous claptrap, it wouldn't be possible for the expert to identify such errors in the first place, thus saving everybody, including the LA, a shedload of time, resources and money.

For transparency, I occasionally assist an expert witness who assists the Defence in some cases of alleged fraud. However, the majority of my work is still with LAs.

Mon 18-Jan-10 10:14 AM by Julian Hobson

This is something that relates entirely to Council Tax Liability. The provision is set out in Schedule 3 of the Local Government finance Act 1992. My reading of the provision is that in reality it only applies in cases where someone fails to answer a question about their liability and not for failure to volunteer it. I could be reading the parts of Schedule 2 that schedule 3 refers to incorrectly, but at this stage I'll stick with the interpretation above.

Subsequent failure results in an even bigger fine of £280.

Thanks for your responses I now feel more able to challenge any such issues and will raise at the earliest opportunity with the relevant LA's.

Any other colleagues who want to give an opinion or their views are still very welcome. The more the better.

Tue 19-Jan-10 11:36 AM by stainsby

Sch 3 of the LGFA 1992 is headed

SCHEDULE 3
PENALTIES
Failure to supply information to or notify billing authority

Paragraphs (1) and (2) go on to provide

l.—(1) Where a person is requested by a billing authority to supply
information under any provision included in regulations under paragraph 2, 3, 9 or 10(2) of Schedule 2 to this Act, the authority may impose a penalty on him if—
(a) he fails to supply the information in accordance with the provision; or
(b) in purported compliance with the provision he knowingly supplies
information which is inaccurate in a material particular.

(2) In any case where—
(a) a person is required by any provision included in regulations under
paragraph 4, 5, 9 or 10(2) of Schedule 2 to this Act to notify a billing
authority; and
(b) he fails without reasonable excuse to notify the authority in accordance with the provision, the authority may impose a penalty on him.
the authority may impose a penalty on him.

Paragraph 4 of Sch 2 is concerned with discounts.

It loks as if the LA can impose a penalty for failure to disclose a change of circumstances pertaining to a discount (not pertaining to CTB), but the impposition of any such penalty is subject to the right of appeal to the valuation tribunal