My client is having money deducted from his IBJSA for a social fund budgeting loan. However he has not actually received the loan, having taken all the official steps to report the giro cheques missing.
Telephoning the Social Fund dept. they absolutely refused to suspend the deductions, saying it is their policy never to stop "recovery". It seems to make no difference that there is currently nothing to recover, and that they actually owe the client money.
Not really happy to let this one stand, but can anyone suggest the best basis to challenge this ?

I know it's probably not the answer you want but as you know the DWP has a duty to replace so I'd seriously consider issuing a county court claim to recover (assuming client will be exempt from fee). Further, I don't know whether judicial review applic would be applicable in this case but it might be as well if you seek advice from someone in the know. Might make the SF sit up and decide their blanket policy could well be unlawful.
Sue

A different department is dealing with the missing giro cheques, and seem to be willing to replace them without problems. They just won't stop "recovery" until then.
Paying back before the loan is given seems to eat away at the lump sum the client is meant to receive from a budgeting loan, and make it much more likely he will end up using some of it to meet his weekly expenses. It would also seem to mean he never actually had the amount he was judged to be entitled to.
It is not a major problem, it just seemed so unreasonable.

I now have another client with this problem - and he was "given" the loan over a year ago. The missing giro cheques have still not been replaced, despite his MP's intervention, and he has just come in because IS are beginning deductions again.
The positive part I suppose is that some sort of hold must have been put on the previous recovery attempt despite the claims that this is not possible.
If not he would have "repaid" before receiving the loan.