child dla , living with parent

my cl was getting dla for some of her children, they went to live with the father, mother did not disclose the move to dla, has she been overpaid dla ?? she handed over teh dla cash to the father but is afraid she may be overpaid dla as the kids weren’t living with her

Wonder what she thinks she’s done wrong?

She is effectively the appointee for the children. A significant number of appointees do not live with the person they are appointed for so no issue there unless the father decides he wishes to be appointee and have the money paid directly to him rather than indirectly via her.

There has been a change of circumstances to the extent there has been a change of address although even that might be arguable as the relevant address is that of the appointee unless they no longer satisfy residence/presence conditions. As appointee she is obligated to disclose that. Perhaps someone dim in DLA will believe that means that the father must be the appointee. I would disagree. Are there consequences for that failure to disclose:? Again, only if he decides he wishes to be the appointee; change bank details etc. Other than that correspondence would continue to come to her at her address and payment would continue to be made to her.

Is the DLA being used in the best interests of the children? Not straightforward. When they lived with her no-one would routinely challenge that unless they had clear evidence of an issue. I suppose it could be argued that after she hands over the money now she’s no real idea whether it goes on something related directly or indirectly to the children so, ironically, it’s an accusation potentially more likely to be levelled now and it isn’t solved by allowing him to become appointee etc.

Have the care or mobility needs of the children reduced for some unlikely reason related to the move? If their needs remain the same then so does their entitlement.

So, for me, struggling to see where any overpayment would be coming from.

Where a claim is made for DLA by a child, the SSWP needs to appoint someone under reg 43 C&P Regs 1987 to manage the claim. The requirements are fairly prescriptive and do generally require that the appointee is living with the child, subject to various exceptions.

However, once that appointment is made, there does not seem to be anything at all in the regs which requires consideration of whether the appointee still lives with the child and the only circumstance in which there is provision to end the appointment is if the child is taken into the care of the local authority. Residence is only considered at the point of making the claim.

That raises some interesting questions about what the regs envisage should happen if the appointee becomes unable or unwilling to act as such, but for your client’s purposes there doesn’t seem to be any issue.