I have a case where the maximum ND charge was applied because the claimant did not inform the LA of his income. The LA was later informed (after 4 weeks) that the ND had moved out prior to the effective date of the maximum charge being applied, but they still insist they cannot revise their decision.

Does anyone know of any case, other than CH/48/2006 where the notional charge has been questioned/appealed?

In truth, I'm a little wary of responding to this as the info so far suggests there is more to this. But, toe dipped etc...

There are three separate issues here.

- the matter of whether the LA had the power to draw an inference as to the non-dep charge;

- whether the LA should revise/supersede an earlier decision where an advantageous change has been notified to the LA late

- late requests for revision / appeal

In principle, the LA obviously has the power to draw inferences. The only question is whether or not the inference was "reasonable". That will depend on the facts. What did the LA know about the non-dep's circs? If the LA had info that it didn't consider (distinguished from taking it into account, but not finding it credible - rightly or wrongly), that could be an error. If so, it's possible reg 4(2) of the HB & CTB (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2001 ("DAR") is engaged - this allows an "anytime revision". But, that's a discretionary provision.

In any case, it is now (apparently) being argued that the non-dep had moved in any case. Where a change in circs is advantageous to the clmt, but is notified to the LA more than one calendar month after the date of change, the default position is that the change of circs is deemed to have happened on the date it is notified to the LA - DAR 8(3)
However, DAR 9 is an exception. As it is an exception, the onus is on the clmt to show s/he falls within it. In order for DAR 9 to apply, the clmt must apply for the time limit to extend; must give details of the change of circs and must include the reasons for failing to notify the change earlier. These are mandatory requirements; not discretionary. In addition, the clmt must have "special circumstances" (relating to the failure to notify the change earlier). There are further considerations, set out in paras 3, 4 & 5 of DAR 9.

In addition, CH/0401/2008 looked briefly at DAR 9 (amongst other matters) and, in a nutshell, it confirmed DAR 9 was not engaged as the clmt had made no application for the time limit to be extended. For transparency, the submissions for the LA in CH/0401/2008 were compiled by myself.

Finally, revision / appeal rights. Assuming it is more than one month, but still within 13, from the LA's decision(s), just appeal. Can't see what there is to lose. If more than 13 months, ask for a statement of reasons (if one has not previously been provided). A SoR restarts the appeal rights - an appeal can be made within 14 days of a SoR (for HB & CTB).

Hope the above helps.

Not sure of the sequence of events here, but if the claimant reports the change within one calendar month of the decision to impose the deduction (rather than one calendar month of the effective date of the deduction), in my opinion D&A Reg 9 is irrelevant.

This is because Reg 9 only applies "for the purposes of making a decision under paragraph 4 of Sch7 of the Act" i.e a supersession.

If the claimant reports the change within one calendar month of the decision to impose the deduction, as far as that decision is concerned, the application is for a revision, not supersession. The power to revise a decision is provided in para 3 of Sch 7, not para 4.

I haven't had any of these for a while but from memory - don't the LA have to have information to suggest that the non dep is working? Only then is the highest non dep deduction engaged if a claimant failes to provide evidence as to income of the non dep.

Yes that is the case (CH/2324/2003)