Below is an extract from the Rightsnet news page.

"Backdating of pension credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit claims for those aged 60 or over is to be limited to three months, the government has announced.

As part of a package of simplification measures aimed at making the benefit system 'simpler and less intrusive for older people', Minister for Pensions Reform Mike O'Brien said today that -

'Whilst we strive to deal with claims sensitively and without unnecessary intrusion, we know that some pensioners don't like being asked for information about their incomes and personal circumstances. A shorter back-dating period ... will significantly cut the amount of personal information we need to request – and speed up claims.'

At the moment arrears of the three benefits can be backdated for up to a year, but will be limited to three months to bring them in line with working age benefits".

Isn't it typical of this government that they are planning to cut the backdating period and thus pay out less money on a claim and dress it up by pretending that they are doing people a favour.

I watched the benefit simplification bill debate in the Commons yesterday (sad, I know) and I got the impression from Caroline Flint (smarmy DWP minister) that the 3 month backdating will be universal, i.e. 3 months for good cause instead of 12 months, for people of all ages. Also, if so, is good cause to be abolished and replaced with statutory criteria as in the IS regime?

now in hansard ...

'From October next year, pension credit backdating rules will be aligned with working-age benefits to make the maximum period three months. At the same time, to maintain alignment, backdating of housing and council tax benefit for pensioners and working-age customers will be reduced to three months. That aligns with the other income-related benefits—income support, jobseeker’s allowance and tax credits.'

"Isn't it typical of this government that they are planning to cut the backdating period and thus pay out less money on a claim and dress it up by pretending that they are doing people a favour."

this is the problem, isn't it? i don't know, paul - for some reason, my mind is filled with the thought of dried shitake mushroom soup...

More from Hansard .... Mike O'Brien -

'The (simplification) package is cost-neutral ... and will be paid for by reducing the backdating of pension credit from 12 months to three months ...

Oh for goodness sake...Spin hits a new all time low. I despair sometimes, I really do.

So, if it costs money we ain't gonna do it. We'er not going to spend money on benefit simplification to help claimants and increase take up because in the long run we really don't give a toss!

We could find the extra money by some form of progressive tax or windfall tax but we dare not upset the rich and powerful. Cowards and charlatans!

We've been trying to reach a consensus about this in the office.
So far, the best we can manage is:

" You couldn't, just could not, shame these creatures."

good point from the LITRG -

'We have, of course, been here before. Back in the year 2000, one Alistair Darling, then a DWP Minister, proposed a reduction from 12 months to 3 months (in relation to housing benefit and council tax benefit) 'to instil in claimants a sense of rights and responsibility by encouraging them to claim on time'.

This was strongly opposed by the Social Security Advisory Committee who pointed out multiple reasons as to why this should not go ahead, including the poor awareness of entitlement and poor administration of benefits by local authorities.

Things have not greatly improved in 2007 and indeed with the added complexity of poor liaison between HMRC and the DWP there is now even more reason to keep the 12 months rule.

The proposals were dropped in 2000 and they should be dropped now.'

Who think that introducing employment and support allowance with a means-tested and contributory version running side by side with incapacity beenfit and income support for the foreseeable future is "benefit simplification."

Pity the poor doctors at ATOS origin. They have enough problems with one sort of medical test: fancy them coping with two different ones, quite possibly one after another on the same day...

Tue 11-Dec-07 09:41 AM by Gareth Morgan

My all time favourite description of government benefits logic came from Commissioner Howell in CIS 7097/1995

I always use it to demonstrate searching our CD-Rom of Social Security Law as it's, unsurprisingly, the only occurrence of 'Draco'.

"9. The principle as thus understood has been described as extraordinary, and draconian: (see Mesher, Income Related Benefits, 1996 Edn. 191, and the Commissioners' decisions in cases CIS/408/1990 para 5, CIS/807/1991 para 6; though the second epithet may be thought a little unfair to Draco, whose harsh code of 621 BC was at least coherent). It is said to be for administrative convenience, to save the authorities the trouble of inquiring into the actual beneficial interests in jointly held or pooled assets, which may be difficult to discern. Reliance is placed on the very wide empowering legislation, which does indeed allow regulations to prescribe that for the purposes of assessing income or capital resources black must be treated as white and vice versa, and people as possessing what they do not, or not possessing what they do.