Is it claimant’s fault if employer is slow in providing p45?

I am currently trying to assist a client who made a claim for HB last year. It seemed it should have been a straightforward change of circumstances. He had stopped one part time job and began another straight after with only a negligible change of income. HB wanted the P45 from previous employer, but they supplied the P60 instead. The employer tended to employ casual staff ( car wash business) and did not seem to understand about the P45, but when it was supplied it was several months later. HB will not award for the period as evidence supplied late. Client was continually chasing this up, e- mailing HB so he was not negligent in trying to resolve the matter. Are there any regs where I can argue that it was no fault of his own, but the employers? I can then ask for a reconsideration of the decision. If not any other advice?

To answer the question - I dont think the claimant should not be penalised, provided he did his best and provided all other relevant docs.

I don’t know off hand of any regs to place blame elsewhere e.g employer.

There are however a few options to challenge it all…

Was client in receipt of HB at the time?

If the LA suspended and then terminated the award -  did LA comply with HB Reg 90 in offering right to statement or reasons and right to appeal/MR? If not you could argue that the claim never ended effectively and that an active claim remained and your client provided documents as soon as available.

Normally a decision would trigger an appeal/MR so the fact you aint mentioned one could mean the LA failed to stop benefit correctly.

In a case I had, the LA gave client 30 days to supply evidence of COC. Even though the client supplied it within that time, the LA terminated the award incorrectly and then advised him to make a fresh claim.  The LA, however, they failed to issue a decision notice of termination with rights of appeal nor did they warn the client in the letter of the consequences of failing to supply the information.

Was there an adverse inference decision?

As your facts seem to suggest he did within his capacity to supply p45 furthermore a p45 is not the only proof of income that could have been supplied to make a HB determination, a payslip or bank statement may even suffice.  With that being said - have the LA been reasonable in witholding entitlement simply by a missing p45.  I suspect this is a harsh outcome. Especially as a p45 is proof of the ending of employment and the amount received during that period. Surely, the p45 issue should only relates to entitlement prior to change of circumstances as once employment is terminated and new employment commenced the criteria is more placed on the new employer and not the last. 

apologies ... should read

...I dont think the claimant should be penalised…

Thanks for your help, I will clarify a couple of things with them , as they may have some more documents to send me, but the information you have supplied will still be very useful

What did HB want the P45 for?  Surely the last payslips would give them the relevant information?  Or did they suspect client was doing two jobs - the old one as well as the new one?  If so, what evidence did they have to come to that view?  If that was their concern did they suggest to client that he get a letter from old employer confirming he had left?