Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
reinstating HB following PIP decision
This is one of those situations where I think it should be simple, but I’m struggling to justify my gut feeling. My Housing Benefit colleagues have asked for advice on this situation. The client has two non dependents, and a break in her PIP claim led to HB asking for evidence of their income. Notes from HB are:
• 06/09/23 – report indicated auto processing of ATLAS had produced and overpayment due to PIP ending. Letter issued advising we now require proof of 2 x non deps income and stating that we have used the maximum non dep deduction. This has resulted in customer no longer qualifying for HB.
• 11/09/23 – Invoice for overpaid HB issued for £2391.53 for period 01/05/23 – 10/09/23
• 09/10/23 – no response to non dep letter. HB claim terminated as customer no longer qualifies and has not contacted office.
• w/c 13/11/23 Customer contacted office to advise she had reapplied for PIP and DWP were going to award it. She was advised that as HB had ended more than 1 month then she would need to apply for housing costs in UC.
• 17/11/23 – Customer advised DWP had reinstated her PIP claim so it is now continuous.
According to the client her PIP claim ended after she failed to return a review form. PIP then accepted good cause (form had not been delivered to her) and reinstated her award. HB have now checked and the PIP is in payment. The client also says that she did not receive anything from HB. (Even if she did there are potentially reasons for her not being able to deal with forms promptly.)
HB say that the claim ended because she failed to respond to their request for information, and that she can’t make a new claim now so would have to claim UC.
My feeling is that they should be able to do an any grounds revision as there has been an award of a qualifying benefit. Can anyone help me explain this to HB?
Can I just check - is it definitely the case that the imposition of both NDDs completely nilled her award and that the overpayment on 11/09 represented the whole of her entitlement for that period?
I think this can be resolved simply by revision on any grounds (late application) or late appeal against stop decision (probably latter safer as appeal admission perhaps more likely than accepting late reviision and if that refused then the appeal will be even later as time will run from original decision date.
Grounds are that on the circumstances now known at the time she did have PIP and hence no NDD.
Despite fact decision was correct (at least that there was a NDD) at time made, we now know that the circumstances were really that she had PIP-
see DMG 13/22 which discusses the case on this- https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/welfare-rights/news/item/dwp-issues-guidance-on-revision-of-decisions-to-terminate-an-award-because-a-qualifying-benefit-has-ceased-where-that-benefit-is-subsequently-reinstated no reason why same does not apply in HB.
Two further points:
The UT decision that Martin linked to deals with a lacuna in the 1999 D&A Regs. That lacuna is absent (can a lacuna be absent!?) from the 2001 D&A Regs which govern HB adjudication. Reg 4(7C) provides for any time revision in precisely these circumstances:
(7C) Where entitlement to housing benefit or council tax benefit has ceased (“decision A”) because entitlement to a relevant benefit within the meaning of section 8(3) of the 1998 Act has ceased (“decision B”), decision A may be revised at any time if the entitlement to the relevant benefit to which decision B applies has been reinstated in consequence of a decision made under section 9 or 10 of the 1998 Act or on an appeal under section 12 of that Act
Second, the Council might say that their decision had nothing to do with the substance of the case: what they did was terminate benefit (having first suspended it) because of the claimant’s failure to reply to reasonable enquiries. They might then say that any appeal/revision would be confined to that narrow procedural issue and Reg 4(7C) would be irrelevant. But from Cordelia’s chronology it looks like they did not suspend and terminate, they went straight in with an adverse inference about the non-deps’ circumstances and made a substantive entitlement decision, in which case Reg 4(7C) is directly engaged because, even if the adverse inference was accurate (which it might have been as it goes), the reinstatement of PIP pulls the rug from under it.
Thanks - yes better to be able to rely on the provision in (7C) which is completely on point. Teach me to post after hours…. (that is my excuse anyway).
Two further points:
The UT decision that Martin linked to deals with a lacuna in the 1999 D&A Regs. That lacuna is absent (can a lacuna be absent!?) from the 2001 D&A Regs
Perhaps we could say the lacuna has been filled?
Two further points:
The UT decision that Martin linked to deals with a lacuna in the 1999 D&A Regs. That lacuna is absent (can a lacuna be absent!?) from the 2001 D&A Regs
Perhaps we could say the lacuna has been filled?
Yes, that’s better
Thank you all for your advice. I’ve spoken to our Housing Benefit lead, and they have agreed that they can revise the decision and reinstate her award. HB Anorak’s ears may have been burning, they have had training from him in the past and were very impressed that he had commented!
It’s abut time they booked a refresher then - still offering the Decisions and Appeals topic!