Closed period supersessions

Does the ‘closed period supersession’ rule apply when the decision is made in advance of the change of circumstances? This is in a case where it is known that the change is only for a fixed period after which entitlement will restart.

I have a client with a decision notice from his LA dated 27/9 saying nil entitlement to HB for the period 30/9 - 6/10, but that entitlement would continue from 7/10, implying a fresh claim was not needed.
However they then sent a letter on 30/9 saying that entitlement could not restart as no fresh claims can be made for HB.

Our typical notion of a closed period supersession, as per CSIS/754/2002 quoted in CIS/2595/2003 is that:

“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.”

And according to the authors of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Legislation, the ultimate reasoning behind this approach (albeit “not explained adequately” in the caselaw) is that it would be unjust to approach this otherwise - if the consequence of a decision maker discovering one week in which you were not entitled to benefit several years ago was then that your entitlement was ended from that point onward with no chance now of re-claiming for the rest of the period through which you were still entitled, that would be very unfair

(Incidentally there is a typo in the latest edition in that the case should be CIS/2595/2003).

In your case though, the decision maker has purported to supersede for a closed period which includes the decision date so that entitlement re-establishes at a future date but without a new claim.

I suppose you might argue that, if the point of the “closed period” supersession is that it is a decision to disentitle or reduce benefit for a definite rather than indefinite term, what does it matter if the definite period ends in the past or the (knowable) future?

But on the other hand we are departing rather from what the caselaw describes. This is no longer a case where “later, and still within the currency of the award, he satisfies the conditions of entitlement”. And the fairness argument from the CPAG book seems to go out the window if, as ought to be the case, the claimant is given notice that their award has ended and they should take appropriate action (albeit this didn’t happen in your case because of the misleading terms of the decision notice - but is that more a matter for complaints processes?)

Interesting.

Could it be argued that there are in effect two supersession decisions here? The first is that as a result of an anticipated change of circumstances entitlement will cease on a certain date. The second is that the first supersession decision is itself superseded because of the second anticipated change of circumstances. It seems artificial but it does give rise to a just outcome. Otherwise the claimant loses the right to HB altogether even though the LA has accepted that as from the second date there would have been entitlement.

Elliot Kent - 13 October 2019 09:44 PM

Our typical notion of a closed period supersession, as per CSIS/754/2002 quoted in CIS/2595/2003 is that:

“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.”

And according to the authors of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Legislation, the ultimate reasoning behind this approach (albeit “not explained adequately” in the caselaw) is that it would be unjust to approach this otherwise - if the consequence of a decision maker discovering one week in which you were not entitled to benefit several years ago was then that your entitlement was ended from that point onward with no chance now of re-claiming for the rest of the period through which you were still entitled, that would be very unfair

(Incidentally there is a typo in the latest edition in that the case should be CIS/2595/2003).

In your case though, the decision maker has purported to supersede for a closed period which includes the decision date so that entitlement re-establishes at a future date but without a new claim.

I suppose you might argue that, if the point of the “closed period” supersession is that it is a decision to disentitle or reduce benefit for a definite rather than indefinite term, what does it matter if the definite period ends in the past or the (knowable) future?

But on the other hand we are departing rather from what the caselaw describes. This is no longer a case where “later, and still within the currency of the award, he satisfies the conditions of entitlement”. And the fairness argument from the CPAG book seems to go out the window if, as ought to be the case, the claimant is given notice that their award has ended and they should take appropriate action (albeit this didn’t happen in your case because of the misleading terms of the decision notice - but is that more a matter for complaints processes?)

Interesting.

Thanks for this. Luckily, we managed to get the extra income which had caused the termination ignored, so entitlement continued uninterrupted anyway.

Charles - 27 October 2019 03:11 AM

Thanks for this. Luckily, we managed to get the extra income which had caused the termination ignored, so entitlement continued uninterrupted anyway.

Certainly a neater solution!

This is an old thread, but in case this ever becomes relevant for someone, I’ve now noticed that the HB manual suggests a closed period supersession should not be done in a case of an advance notification of a change of circs.

See para 6.663 here.