× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Benefits for older people  →  Thread

Overpayments, appointeeship, and recovery

ROBBO
forum member

Welfare rights team - Stockport Advice

Send message

Total Posts: 334

Joined: 16 June 2010

I’m dealing with an appeal against a substantial overpayment of PC, albeit there don’t seem to be any arguments left against what remains of the sum involved (which has been reduced by about half, one way and another).

The overpayment decision is that the remaining sum is recoverable from the appointee (wife) due to failure to disclose income, originally by the claimant and then by her when she became appointee.  She became the appointee only during the later stages of the overpayment.  Deductions are being taken from the claimant’s benefits on an ongoing basis.

She now fears he may have a terminal condition - and has queried where she would stand with the overpayment if she was bereaved.

My understanding would be that an overpayment for the period she was appointee would remain recoverable, but for the period of his claim the amount involved could only be recovered if the DWP decided to issue bankruptcy proceedings.

On that basis, I should be asking the tribunal to distinguish in its decision who the overpayment is recoverable from over the two separate periods.

I would still guess that the DWP would attempt to recover the whole lot from the appointee by ongoing deductions from her instead…

Any experience/insight gratefully accepted.

past caring
forum member

Welfare Rights Adviser - Southwark Law Centre, Peckham

Send message

Total Posts: 1116

Joined: 25 February 2014

Are we talking about a full power of attorney type of appointeeship here? Not just a DWP/benefits appointee?

ROBBO
forum member

Welfare rights team - Stockport Advice

Send message

Total Posts: 334

Joined: 16 June 2010

It is just a DWP appointeeship that was in place here.

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

Okay, so what caused the original OP? Was that also an alleged failure? Does the claimant dispute that? Is there a counter argument that either the claimant made a disclosure; didn’t know the material fact or, in all the circumstances could reasonably believe that the fact was not material.

This sounds like another in the long line of scam recoverable overpayments to me. I would guess that there’s little no evidence around the original o/p and they’re going after the appointee because it looks like the easy option. However, if any of the above applied to the claimant then look at whether the appointee

- had no reason to believe any initial disclosure was ineffective, in which case no need to disclose. The old “mistaken belief, reasonably held” argument.

- if the claimant didn’t know the material fact then why would an appointee (depending on the specific circumstances).

- if the claimant didn’t believe the fact to be material then how would the appointee come to do so?

Will very much come down to what the income was too.

Had a wonderfully awkward case once where the tribunal asked why the wife as appointee felt she could argue that she didn’t know her husband was working. She surely saw him leave the house and come back several hours later?

She thought he was going to the pub to meet women, which she was okay with as she’d lost interest!!! She was genuinely shocked to discover he had a pt job doing deliveries!

Jon (CANY)
forum member

Welfare benefits - Craven CAB, North Yorkshire

Send message

Total Posts: 1362

Joined: 16 June 2010

R(IS)5/03 and CPC/2021/2008 are perhaps relevant, as mentioned in this thread:

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/member/4224/viewthread/8120/

In the case prompting that thread, I didn’t succeed in the first go round at getting the tribunal to apply R(IS)5/03 and apportion liability. I don’t know how often it’s an issue they need to grapple with.

I don’t think the appointee’s liability for an overpayment necessarily begins on day one of the appointeeship. As Mike says, it should come down to who misrepresented or failed to disclose, and at what stage. When did the appointee become aware of the facts? When was the appointee made aware of their duties (INF4s etc), if they ever were? Did the appointee exercise due diligence? Who actually had the benefit of the PC payments?

ROBBO
forum member

Welfare rights team - Stockport Advice

Send message

Total Posts: 334

Joined: 16 June 2010

Thanks for the replies - useful stuff.

In this case, the income which caused the overpayment belonged to the appointee herself, so we can be clear at least on the point that she knew about it.