Non-dep deductions/ HB claim terminations

Hi,

Non dependent leaves the work programme to start an apprenticeship. HBO is notified by JC+ that there has been a change of circumstances, and the LA applies the highest non-dep deduction (which ended HB payment entirely). One month later the claim for HB is cancelled by HBO. I’ve been told that ‘the computer cancels off claims if they’re not in payment’. Council Tax support continues to be paid.

Arrears build, and finally an intervention is made, where the non-dependent reveals their income, having refused to do so for the preceding 4 month. Its not clear at the moment how much the HBO knew about the situation, and whether or not it was reasonable not to have made a more realistic non-dep deduction.

The LA has refused to reopen the claim or to apply the correct non-dep deduction rate retrospectively. It has also refused to backdate a new claim.

I think it was unreasonable for the LA to expect the claimant to supply information that they had no control over (non-dep’s payslips), and that the LA could have made further enquiries, or given guidance regarding what information would be acceptable in lieu of payslips.

Its currently unclear if the HB claim should have been terminated, or whether the LA has scope to merely continues to apply the highest non-dep deduction until it receives evidence to the contrary.

Any thoughts greatly appreciated.

This is a perfect example of why it is important for decision makers to be clear about precisely what adjudication mechanism they are relying on.  As the UT never tires of reminding us, there is no such thing as “cancelling” an HB claim and the use of that term obfuscates the decision making process.

The options in a case like this are:

- suspend HB and, if the process is followed correctly, terminate the award if the claimant fails to cooperate with enquiries; or

- if the claimant fails to respond to reasonable enquiries, draw an adverse inference about the matter and make a superseding decision on that basis

The distinction is important because it is arguable that the right to appeal against termination is more limited than the right to appeal against an adverse inference: the former is a procedural mechanism while the latter is a decision about the substantive facts of the case and those facts can be corrected in the course of an appeal.

The immediate step (if not alreadey taken) should be for the claimant to appeal to the Tribunal against the termination/inference, making it clear that that is what they want to do rather than an application for revision.  If the appeal is late reasons must be provided (eg was hoping to resolve the matter through informal negotiations but ran into a brick wall).  But that appeal can be combined with a suggestion that the Council in the meantime explains itself:

- do they say the award terminated or are they relying on an adverse inference?
- if they are relying on termination, are they satisfied that the procedure was fully complied with (in particular that the claimant was given at least one month to respong to a D&A Reg 13 compliant letter)? Such a letter needs to set out the info required and tell the claimant that it is open to him/her to show that info does not exist or is too difficult to obtain. If those options are not included, the threshold requirements for termination have not been met.

Thank you for the reply, HB Anorak (I originally enclosed cancelled in commas, too- it’s an incredibly annoying word in the context of a HB claim).