Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
Jurisdiction ??
Hello All, your guidance is very much appreciated as I am slightly flummoxed.
Brief history:
07.02.12 decision from debt management re; IS overpayment (OP) due to failure to disclose husband’s Occ Pen, dates of OP 11.12.2007 - 08.08.2011.
05.03.2012 appealed submitted citing no FTD and therefore no recoverable OP. Subject Access Request made.
19.06.2012 letter in from Benefit Delivery Centre advising decision revised, period reduced to 14.12.2010 - 04.04.2011, OP reduced to £435. Appeal lapsed as more favourable to client - client happy.
10.09.2012 Letter received from debt management stating that the dates of the OP are 14.12.2010 - 08.08.2011, OP of £937 - stating appeal lapsed as more favourable to client!.
08.10.2012 appealed the 10.09.2012 decision made by debt management on the basis that the BDC has already revised and reduced OP (copy of 19.06.2012 decision, evidence used by BDC and calcs enclosed).
22.03.13 ‘final’ decision made by debt management (and not sent/received by me or client) stating:
“Jobcentre Plus have stated that the amount to be recovered is only £435, whereas my revised decision is that the recoverable amount is actually £925. The reason for this is that the appeal was made prior to 01.10.2012 and JCP have no jurisdiction to change the recoverability decision. For some reason they did so, but their decision is erroneous in law because of this lack of jurisdiction.
The history of this case is that JCP received Generalised Matching Service notification on 11.04.2011 alerting them to the fact that Mrs X’s partner could be receiving an Occ Pen which had not been declared. Enquiries were made and confirmation was finally received on 28.08.2011. This is the date of the causal link date and any benefit paid after the benefit week ending prior to this is not recoverable, hence the recoverable period being changed. JCP felt that the recoerability end date should have been the benefit week ending prior to 11.04.2011, but this is not the case. Our guidance is that the causal link is not broken until confirmation of the pension is received.”
I have spoken with the DM who wrote the above and she could not cite any legislation upon which her ‘guidance’ is based. Additionally as her revised decision of £925 OP is less than the revised decision reducing OP to £937 (10.09.2012) the appeal has been lapsed.
Can anyone shed some light or offer some guidance on:
- the jurisdictional issue
- the relevance of 01.10.12
- tactics
- anything!!
Ta, in advance.
1/10/2012? I have had this date come up recently in a couple of cases - it is, apparently, the date on which the ability to make actual overpayment decisions was passed back from Debt Management to JC+ with Debt Management now being solely what it says on the tin - the DWP’s debt colllection arm. I think I caused a certain amount of ire with person from Debt Managment who told me this when I said that it was news to me that they’d ever had the power to make decisions and that, in any event, it was irrelevant from my and my client’s point of view because both Debt Management and JC+ are part of the DWP and we’d made a valid appeal.
As for your case - I think it’s correct (and easier) to think of it like this;
1. forget about the internal DWP ‘jurisdiction’ issue.
2. there is nothing in law to prevent one DM revising an overpayment decision on receipt of an appeal, so that the recoverable amount is reduced and the appeal lapsed - and then for another DM to later realise that this was a mistake, to revise again and to issue a new decision with an increased amount of recoverable overpayment (which could even be more than in the original overpayment decision). Having made a mistake, the DWP are not bound by it and are entirely within their rights to correct it, so long as the proper requirements of revision etc are met. But this would be a new decision and would carry fresh appeal rights.
3. assuming (and I think it’s a safe assumption given the dates involved) that the 7/2/2012 decision gave a recoverable amount higher than any of the subsequent revised decisions (£937.00) the appeal has certainly lapsed - it doesn’t really matter what’s happened in the interim.
4. put in another appeal against the latest £925 overpayment decision, if there are grounds and if there is little danger of the recoverable amount getting increased significantly by tribunal if the case gets that far.
Jurisdiction is not the issue. Debt Management and Benefit Centre are both part of DWP and all decisions are made by the same Sec. of State!
The issue is an administrative one. Debt Management (apparently) ceased to have responsibility for decision making from Oct last year and are now purely the debt collection arm of DWP. All o/p decisions, revision applications and appeals should now be dealt with by the original ‘referring benefit office’ (i.e. Benefit Centre, Disability Benefit Centre, Pension Service etc).
However in practice the left hand does not seem to know what the right is doing etc. etc.
It is questionable which of the decisions is actually legally valid (i.e. was the debt management decision a valid revision / supersession of the earlier benefit centre decision and on what grounds??).
Tactically it may be advisable to appeal each and every decision (and send a copy to both the benefit centre and debt management) and if still no progress refer the decisions and appeals made to a tribunal judge and request directions be issued to the DWP on conduct of the appeal(s).
We have been having this problem with PC overpayments due to ‘undeclared’ occ. pens. and have found the only way to make progress is to refer the case to local MP because of the ‘black hole’ between Pension Service regional office, their centralised appeals section at Newcastle and Debt Management (impossible to move appeals forward ‘cos each says it’s the others responsibility - often we can’t even get to the point that one or more part of DWP has confirmed that the appeal has actually been received and registered and is being dealt with by X part of DWP).
Thank you all,
I thought I was going mad and in reality it is a simple case of the DWP going revision crazy!
The 22.03.2013 decision notice states:
“I have revised the overpayment decision dated 07.02.2012 which stated that an OP of IS for the period 14.12.2010 to 08.08.2011 amounting to £937 was recoverable. [*1]
The decision(s) determining the award(s) of IS for this period has been revised by the decision dated 29.08.2012. [*2]
My revised decision is as follows; As a result of the decision(s) dated 29.08.2012 an OP of IS has been made from 14.12.2010 to 08.08.2011 amounting to £924.
On 12.10.2010 or as soon as practicable after, Miss X failed to disclose the material fact that her partner was in receipt of an Occ Pen.
As a consequence IS amounting to £925 from 14.12.2010 to 08.08.2011 was paid which would not have been but for the FTD. Accordingly that amount is recoverable from Miss X.”
My brain is about to shut down but I have the following issues with the above:
[*1] the original 07.02.2012 decision was regarding a FTD/OP for 11.12.2007 to 08.08.2011 of £1,207.
[*2] There was NO decision made on 29.08.2012 (the relevant date is 10.09.2012).
IMO this is not a valid revision.
Tony, in answer to your questions;
- the BDC changed the OP start as they had no copy of client’s claim form from 2007 so could not show she FTD/misrep from this date the earliest IS claim they had with no Occ Pen info was 14.12.2010.
- the BDC changed the end date as the information that there was an Occ Pen was highlighted by the Generalised Matching Service on 11.04.2011 so DWP had this info and could have suspended payment of IS on this date.
Sorry Chaos, in my post when I was referring to the March decision, I actually meant the June 2012 decision as being the one that has legal effect.
Hi Tony, I knew what you meant :)
Me again,
My colleague remembers some case law regarding the ‘causal link’ issue and the DWP having sufficient time to deal with specific evidence being provided e.g. by an pension provider.
Does anyone recall this?
Just thought i’d add..Had interesting discussion with public law solicitor recently about revision of mistaken decision and legality. In my case £1 to £800 IS OP. He wasn’t hopeful of chances on JR and in any case not enough at stake for LSC funding
wouldn’t surprise me if this went to appeal and the dwp couldn’t produce the paperwork give the mess they have made of it so far.
can you not write to the tribunal service asking for a direction notice that the original appeal be listed and heard as the actual core issue of the appeal has never been dealt with?