Sorry guy another long one – can anyone help?

Client made a claim for CTB in May 2008, he wasn’t awarded because his income was to high. Client was receiving JSA (CB) and his wife was receiving maternity pay of £700.00 p/m. Client’s wife was being made redundant, but didn’t know when. The LA gave the client one month to provide evidence of P45, following any redundancy.

Client didn’t send in P45 until February 2009 together with evidence of JSA (IB). Wife was made redundant end of August 2008 and they started claiming JSA (IB) from September 2008.

The issue here is the LA terminated the clients claim for CTB and didn’t advise him. Can they do this after 13 weeks without providing notification? The reason it took so long for him to provide P45 and evidence of JSA was because his Wife was pregnant and they were being harassed by bailiffs, which they found extremely stressful. Plus client thought his original claim for CTB was still live.

He has since made a new claim for CTB and requested his claim be backdated to September 2008. However, this has been refused as he has not shown ‘good cause’ when giving reasons as to why he didn’t claim earlier.

Several considerations:

1) Could we apply the relevant benefit rule?
2) Are there any regulations where the LA must advise a client when terminating a claim for benefit? Is this a supersession?
3) Good cause?

I would be really grateful for any input, especially with regards to the second point. Or have I completely read the reg’s incorrectly?

Wed 11-Nov-09 09:46 PM by Kevin D

If it is correct that the LA failed to notify the clmt of a decision at all, the purported decision is of no force or effect - see R v SoS Home Dept & anor ex parte Anufrijeva (2003) UKHL 36 (para 26). I can see no reason why the principle should not apply to HB/CTB.

There are HB/CTB specific CDs/UTDs which take precisely this line, but I don't have the citations immediately to hand.

Termination counts as a supersession - R(H) 4/08. Based on the info given in your post, I'm assuming the purported termination is in accordance with regs 13 & 14 of the HB/CTB (Decision and Appeals) Regs 2001. It is worth noting that a termination can take effect ONLY if DAR 13 has been complied with to the letter. There are now many CDs/UTDs where LAs have failed to correctly follow DAR 13 and, as a direct result, have found the purported "termination" to be of no effect at all. One of the best examples of a LA getting it completely wrong (procedurally) is in CH/1602/2008.

If the LA has failed to follow the regs and/or has failed to notify the clmt, the legal status of the award is that it was never ended - it is still in existence.

Thank you for your advice I will look into the regulations that you have mentioned. There is no evidence contained within the Sec of States showing that the LA advised the client of his claim being terminated. They simply mention that his claim was terminated because he had no entitlement for more than 13 weeks.
I
’m sorry I’m fairly new at this so “regs 13 & 14 of the HB/CTB (Decision and Appeals) Regs 2001”, don’t mean anything to me until I look $ What does DAR 13 & CDs/UTDs mean? Sorry as I said I’m fairly new to this? Abbreviations are not my strong point!

Thanks again I will look into the point you have raised.

Fri 13-Nov-09 08:53 AM by nevip

"DAR 13 & CDs/UTDs "

(Housing Benefit) Decisions and Appeals Regulations, regulation 13.

Commissioners decisions.

Upper Tribunal Decisions

The Upper Tribunal has now replaced social security commissioners and hear appeals of first tier tribunals on points of law only. CD's/UTD's can bind future tribunals where the point of law at issue is the same

One thing I am not clear about.

Your client made a claim in May 08 and was found not to be entitled due to excess income.

Did your client make another claim in August/September when his wife was made redundant or did he just notify the LA of a change in circumstances?

If it was just a change in circumstances are you sayio ng the LA should have treated the claim of May 2008 as an advanced claim?

Hi,

Client made a claim in May 2008, he was refused because income was too high. He received two separate letters:

1) Advising him that no benefit is payable (income to high)
2) Then a further letter stating they will use his wife’s income of £700 p/m until they have received her P45.

Client's wife stopped work end of August 08 and he made a joint claim for JSA (IB). No further claim was made for CTB at this point. However, due to stress and wife’s pregnancy etc client did not take P45 and evidence of JSA to the LA until February 2009. I think he thought his first claim for CTB was still live. It wasn't until he did this that he realised his claim was closed, which is what prompted him to make a new claim in March and request backdating.

Mmm maybe it should have been treated as an advance claim? Not sure of the time scale/limits though. Client had not been in contact for more than 13 weeks which is why they closed the claim. But they didn’t advise him of this.

Thanks Nevip - now i feel really silly!!!