Housing Benefit stopped after client went abroad for more than 28 days

LA only found out about her absence after she had returned to the UK and was once again entitled to HB? Sounds like it could have been dealt with by a closed period supersession.

Thank you for the quick response and advice.
I cannot say I have ever heard of a ‘closed period’ supersession - do you happen to have any further information about it please?

This was set out by Mr Commissioner (as then was ) Bano at paragraph 9 of CIS/2595/2003

“I also agree with the Secretary of State’s representative that, if a valid review and revision decision had been made, the overpayment recoverability decision should have been limited to those periods when the claimant was shown to have been working. The position was correctly set out in the representative’s submission in CSIS/754/2002, which was accepted by the Commissioner:

“If, during the currency of an award, an overpayment arises because a claimant ceases to satisfy the conditions of entitlement, but later, and still within the currency of the award, he satisfies the conditions of entitlement, the disentitlement on revision or supersession is not indefinite because he has not made a new claim at the relevant time, but is instead limited to the period where the conditions of entitlement are not satisfied, unless some other ground for disentitlement arises.”

A similar approach was taken in CIB/5759/1999, CIB/5170/1999 and CIB/4090/1999.”

You can find all the cited decisions except CSIS/754/2002 in the commissioners archive on Rightsnet

Many thanks for this information, it is very useful.  I have since been informed that the Senior Appeals Officer is reconsidering this now, so I am hopeful of a successful outcome but if not, will definitely use this Case Law.

I have a similar situation where CA and IS was stopped due to the cared for PIP being out of payment. Housing benefit was also stopped after being informed that IS had stopped. There is dispute as to whether HB contacted the customer or not.

I can do a backdated IS claim under CIS/222/2021 as PIP is now back in payment and there was no break in claim. Does anyone know if I could use the same case to get Housing Benefit restarted and backdated?

Many thanks

Yes you can but with both IS and HB you are not making a claim you are asking for a revision of the decision to end the award.

It might seem pedantic but the DWP and LA’s continue to spread confusion over this.

It took a 3JP to tell the DWP that they had got it wrong with UC and its still happening with Bereavement Support Payment following the remedial order allowing payments to unmarried partners

Thank you very much Stainsby

By the way, the termination of IS is of itself not sufficient to provide the basis for a superseding decision ending HB
See CH/3736/2006 and CH/1664/2009

Bump!

Just researching closed period supersession; it’s been a long time since I’ve needed to think about them!

None of the decisions in this thread appear in vol III of Sweet & Maxwell. Have they been superseded by more recent caselaw or is this an oversight? It’s a subject I’d expect to see discussed in those hallowed pages but I’ve not got time to read all the commentary now.

I can’t find any caselaw on here since 2018…

Still referred to in the commentary to Sch 7. CSPSSA 2000 in the current edition of Findlay which references Circular HB/CTB A6/2009. And Chapter 6 of the HB Guidance Manual at paras. 6.662 - 6.664.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7b93a1ed915d1311060271/hbgm-c6-reconsidering-revising-superseding.pdf

Jumping on this one - client has a court case coming up (date TBA) for rent arrears.  Her HB stopped in July 2022 but due to a mental health breakdown following the birth of her child she failed to respond to any letters.  Apparently HB wrote asking for proof of her self employed income but she never received this letter.  The client receives child tax credit, working tax credit and child benefit but hasn’t a date yet for her migration to UC and doesn’t want to bring this forward.

The late application to reconsider the closure of HB is very late - any chance it would succeed?

Thanks

Much depends on what happened and when
The LA can request information/ ask for customer to complete a review form.
if self employed, this is usually done each year.

so what SHOULD happen is this:
HB in payment La write and ask for info needed
if no reply after 1 month, claim needs to be suspended and same info requested again, advising that claim will be terminated if info not provided with a (further ) month

if info still not provided, (now at least 2 months from the date the info was originally requested) then claim id ended from the date HB was paid up to on the date it was supended ) most HB claims are paid in arrears)

That would be a water tight termination and you customer would have no grounds for that to be looked at again

but LA are notoriously bad at following this timeline

and often, you find that the claim was terminated without being suspended first, or terminated without the correct time frames g=being given, or an adverse inference applied to a prior period.
all these things would allow a possibility of challenging the terminating decision

if she has best part of 2 years rent arrears, (july 22 - March 24)  she maybe better off claiming UC now to get some Housing element up and running - challenging the HB termination is unlikely to be quick, because you you need a time line of what they did when and why before you know whether is challenge-able or not.

Thanks, I will try and get the timeline from the client and/or HB.

Client is reluctant to claim UC as she’s better off on tax credits and won’t get the TE.  When she spoke to UC they told her she’d be without any payment for weeks which she doesn’t want either - they told her that waiting to be migrated would be a lot quicker.

Dan Manville - 07 March 2024 11:44 AM

Bump!

Just researching closed period supersession; it’s been a long time since I’ve needed to think about them!

None of the decisions in this thread appear in vol III of Sweet & Maxwell. Have they been superseded by more recent caselaw or is this an oversight? It’s a subject I’d expect to see discussed in those hallowed pages but I’ve not got time to read all the commentary now.

I can’t find any caselaw on here since 2018…

I’m sure there was recent Welfare Rights Bulletin article on closed period supersessions.
I’ll let someone who’s more au fait with searching for things online find it.

https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/15132

https://askcpag.org.uk/?id=209810&_gl=1*1fqueu*_gcl_au*MTg1Mzc3NTY5My4xNzA5NTQ5MDc5*_ga*MTM5NTgyMTU1MC4xNTg0NjQxMTUz*_ga_64Z2B618ZP*MTcxMDQ5NzkzOC4xMTcuMS4xNzEwNDk3OTM4LjAuMC4w