Thu 25-Jun-09 12:13 PM by Kevin D
It's unclear whether it is your client who is the claimant, or the husband.
Based on para 4, I'm assuming your client is the clmt (i.e. the one who is regarded as being SMI).
It is critical to distinguish who the claimant is - there is no such thing as joint claimants for HB/CTB.
If the clmt is your client (with SMI), the LA is plain wrong to "...expect..." the partner to be "...responsible..." UNLESS the partner is now an appointee for HB/CTB purposes. Bear in mind that a person is only an appointee for HB/CTB purposes if the LA formally agrees to that status - a person cannot assume appointee status.
Backdating requires a CLAIMANT to show good cause (assuming no formal appointee). If the LA is effectively suggesting the partner has to show good cause, that is simply wrong and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the backdating provision.
CDs that may be of interest:
CH/1791/2004 (backdating - role of non-clmt) CH/1169/2006 (backdating - role of non-clmt) CH/3817/2004 (backdating - gc must be shown by clmt, not ptnr + joint claimants not allowed); CH/3622/2006 (o/p case, but confirms joint claimants not allowed)
Hope this helps.
|