LA changing its mind?

I’ve never seen any decision like this one and I wondered if anyone else had and whether it is lawful

Cl has complicated HB (specified accommodation) and UC cases that centre around the cl being unable to account for where a considerable amount of money went. The cl was refused UC under the notional or actual capital rules and this is under appeal.

When we became aware that the same thing had happened with HB (the cl hadn’t told us) we sent in a submission and a considerable amount of evidence to the LA.  Not long after that they wrote back to say that they had revised their original decision and both reduced the overpayment by a considerable amount and made an arrears payment to the landlord. The overpayment was not remitted completely as they could not determine precisely when the cl’s capital fell below £16k but by implication, were willing to accept that it had done so for the period covered by the bank accounts and other evidence we sent in.

This was well and good but a couple of weeks later we got another letter to say that this decision had been rescinded by the ‘Technical Team’ and the original overpayment still stood as they could not determine when the capital fell below the prescribed limit as a large amount of capital had most likely been withdrawn in cash and there was no explanation of where it went.

I can see the strength of that argument as it is the substance of the ongoing UC appeal but can the LA simply decide, in the absence of any further information, to take a different view of exactly the same facts after they have already reached a decision favourable to the Cl?

A decision cannot simply be ‘rescinded’ or ‘undone’. You need to analyse these cases in terms of the decision making process and the grounds for revision and supersession.

The DM appears to have revised the earlier entitlement decision(s) in line with your arguments. If the DM now wants to further revise those decisions, they can do so but they will need to establish grounds for revision. That would most obviously be on grounds of official error.

If the DM has accepted your arguments on a point but those arguments are wrong in law, then it is going to be open to the DM to argue that there was official error in accepting those arguments (although this will have consequences as to the recoverability of the funds paid over to the landlord). If however the DM has decided the case on some question of evaluative judgment which they now regret, it is far less likely that they would be able to establish official error in the decision unless it was wholly outside of what the DM was entitled to decide.

Thanks Elliott, the letters seem to hint at an official error. Subject to the Cl’s approval I think to protect their position we will put the whole matter under appeal and , if we win the UC appeal, (which is substantially the same), cite that as persuasive when we eventually get to the HB appeal

Sure but you can take the point about the validity of this latest revision as part of that. If you lose on the merits, you therefore have the fallback position that this earlier concession must stand unless the LA can positively show that it was erroneous.

(And if you win on the UC appeal, then you necessarily win the HB appeal too because it functions as a passport, its not just persuasive).