× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Income support, JSA and tax credits  →  Thread

Refund of charges for Section 117 after care

BMO1
forum member

Benefit MAximisation Team, Liverpool Direct Limited, Liverpool

Send message

Total Posts: 1

Joined: 24 June 2010

Has anyone dealt with a case where the LA has issued a refund to a person who lives independently in their own home and who has been charged incorrectly for domiciliary care/day centre attendance? My question is whether any refund made to the customer by the LA can arguably be disregarded under para 66 of Schedule 10 to the 1987 Regs.

I am aware of 2 commissioners decisions R(IS) 5/08 and CIS/2448/2006 however they deal with people who live in residential accommodation.

nevip
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Sefton Council, Liverpool

Send message

Total Posts: 3139

Joined: 16 June 2010

Paragraph 66 was amended to its current form by regulation 2(5)(c) of The Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2003.  The explanatory note to the regulations states that “regulations 2(4)(b), 2(5)(c), 3(4)(b), 3(5)(c), 4(5)(b), 4(6)(d), 5(4)(b), 5(5)(d) and 6(2) amend the principal sets of regulations and the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (State Pension Credit) Regulations 2003 to clarify the extent of income and capital disregards in relation to the scheme known as “supporting people””.  Now although the explanatory note does not form part of the regulations proper it does signal the intent of the amendment and, in my view, it would be difficult to convince a tribunal to construe paragraph 66 in a wider sense, given that the modern approach to statutory interpretation is a purposive one.

BMO1
forum member

Benefit MAximisation Team, Liverpool Direct Limited, Liverpool

Send message

Total Posts: 1

Joined: 24 June 2010

Thanks, I had thought that as the notes in Sweet and Maxwell for para 66 of Schedule 10 refer you to the notes for para 76 of Schedule 9 which refer to Supporting People. I just wondered had any one successfully argued the point or whether they were aware of any commissioners decisions on this point. Thanks again