UC overpayment - is this a prior revision or supersession of the decision
My client has a decision letter saying he has been overpaid UC from x date to y date, as ‘your capital is considered above £16000’ [sic]
Is this sufficient to count as a revision or supersession of the entitlement decision? And where the capital was properly disclosed (thought by the client to be disregarded) are there grounds to revise, notwithstanding the recoverability of all overpayments? I suppose an (advantageous) official error could be relied on to revise?
It’s not immediately clear from the form of words used quoted whether the decision maker is intending to revise or supersede the previous decisions. It is however reasonably apparent that they must be doing one of those two things.
You can perhaps take an appeal point in that its not clear what the legal basis of the decision is and expect the DWP to clarify this during the course of the appeal, but ultimately the nature of appeal proceedings is that the FtT is looking at the matter for itself and has to consider things by reference to the legal powers which the SSWP has rather than necessarily being confined to how she has expressed herself in making those decisions (see R(IB)2/04).
Thanks Elliot, rather as I feared, I’ll put the main focus elsewhere.