Many moons ago I seem to recall a CD re reliance on client's credibility. Client submits form, LA say not. Does anyone know it or anything else which would help please.

cheers
Sue

Sue

There are a few decisions on this issue, many quite old but still relevant. Cannot think of the references at the moment although I have electronic copies of some of them somewhere.

However, one recent one, which may become quite significant as it is currently under appeal to the Court of Appeal, is CG/2973/04, under appeal as Soni-Levi v SoS for the DWP. Not sure how relevant it is to your case but hope it is of some help. Have not got a copy I'm afraid.

Regards
Paul

CG/2973/04 is on the cmmrs site @

http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/aspx/view.aspx?id=1725

i'm glad this topic has risen. there isnt a week goes by when i dont meet a client who says they posted a form to HB, who claim "it never arrived" which i believe is benefit code for "we lost it"

Credibility...

I'm not sure why "credibility" would necessarily be at issue. The starting point will be that a clmt and LA will have equal credibility, unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise.

As for a claim being made, or not, there are two stages:

1) the onus, in the first instance, is on the LA to show a claim was not received.

2) THEN, the onus shifts to the clmt to show a claim was made.

There are many CDs on "postal" issues, but one specific to HB/CTB is worth reading: CH/1362/2003.

Other CDs where postal issues are addressed are (NB: the non-HB/CTB CDs are courtesy of previous Stainsby posts):

CH/0298/2003
CH/4006/2002

CG/2973/2004
R(SB) 8/89 - CSB/0788/1987

An instance of case law:
SEALY v Consignia plc (2002) EWCA Civ 878 (on www.bailii.org)

Cheers all.

Kevin, I've done subs before on the credibility of clients assertions(after seeing it somewhere else I must admit)for instance if it's a long term claimant and past benefit claims have always run smoothly with claimants having always responded to queries, sent in relevant info etc etc. It's usually pretty convincing when there have been various coc's and claimant continues to be a good boy and comply with all the necessaries. My argument is always the same "why would they fail to submit a form when they know it will result in rent arrears"

I've usually managed to convince them in such cases without it going to appeal. This doesn't work with clients who are regularly late submitting forms/info. LA usually have their stock answer - "we sent them this that and the other and they still didn't respond"

sue,

CH4065 was a phone call rather than postal, but deals with uncorroborated evidence,credibility issues etc.

jj