Benefit overpayment - Deaf paent only understanding signing appealing as child in residential schhol

A profoundly deaf parent is appealing a decision of overpayment of thier childs care componant as she cannot understand written information and only uses signing as first language. No one advised her, or the rest of the family as they all suffer profound deafness, she had to inform about the change of circumstances and the client feels it is a breech of her natural justice because of her problems with no understanding of writing. Can anybody help with further advice on this?

I’m not sure how relevant it is to your case but CH/2098/2005 may be of interest.  In summary, it was found that the absence of an express statement on a claim form relating to assistance for deaf people did not amount to an error and the clmt could have still have sought assistance if needed.

The question boils down to this.  Providing there was no other causation for the overpayment, was the material fact that wasn’t disclosed one that the claimant was notified to report and notified in unambiguous terms?  If the answer is yes then there is absolutely no defence to recovery.  If the answer is no, to either of those parts, then there is a defence and that is, was it reasonable for the claimant to know that the material fact ought to have been disclosed?

I’m not an expert in disability discrimination law, but I wonder if this approach might help?

1. As Paul says, in a case involving failure to notify a change of circs, there must be evidence of unambiguous instructions to the client to notify that particular change in order than any overpayment is recoverable:  B v SoS for W &P, CG/1195/2002, CIB/3823/2008 and CG/37/2008.

2.  The DWP has a statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments to its services in order to enable people with a disability to access them.  If the DWP paying office was aware that the client was deaf and could not read (this would have to be proved) , Could it be argued that the duty to notify the change of circs was modified by DWP’s failure to comply with their statutory duty to put the instructions into a format which could be understood by the client?  In R(A) 2/06 it was held that oral representations by a DWP officer could modify the client’s duty to disclose.  So following the logic of this, inactions by DWP staff which amount to a breach of statutory duty by the DWP can also modify the client’s duty to notify a change of circs?

Of course much will depend on the facts of each case, but the principle might have a wider application.