My client has been on housing benefit since 1999. Between 10/07/2000 and 17/09/2000 her Housing benefit stopped. I tried to challenge this but the LA say there reccords dont go back this far.

The clients Housing Benefit also stopped between 11/11/2001 and 13/05/2002. This was due to a periodic review, and the client did not respond to any letters.

As the client has been on continuous Income Support throughout this period (i have that in writting from the Job Centre) and hasnt had any others move in with her I am at a loss to know what to challenge. The LA cannot give me reasons either.

The client has been in rehab for brief periods and remains vulnerable to alchol and drug misuse. The arrears caused by this are high, so i would like to know if there is any way to challenge?

Any answers would be appreciated

The period of 6 months that is missing (nov 01 to may 02) will presumably be because the LA suspended his claim for failure to provide info and then terminated it with effect from the date of suspension when client failed within one month to provide the information they had requested.

Usually, in my experience, such decisions on termination are invalid as the LA cannot show that they have followed the correct procedure for notification of the requirements of the suspension regulation etc. For example the suspension letter does not say: "if you do not have the information because a third party has it or if the information does not exist then please tell us this because we may be able to waive the request. Also if you cannot get the information to us within one month please explain this and we may be able to extend the time to longer than a month". These matters are all "requirements" of the suspension provision and if the notice of suspension does not address them adequately then the termination decision cannot operate.

However, the question arises as to whether you have any remedy this late in the day. Many LA's did not regard a termination decision as one against which you could appeal. However, Commissioner Jacobs has finally nailed this particular piece of goofiness in CH/402/2007 (available here: http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/aspx/view.aspx?id=2239 )
Given that many LAs thought there was no appeal against a termination decision it may be that they never properly notified your client of the decision. If that is the case then arguably time for your client to appeal the termination has not started to run.

If however, your client was notified correctly of the termination then you are now well outside the time to appeal. You could potentially put together an official error revision argument and explain that there notice of suspension was inadequate (assuming you can establish what the notice said- can you ask the LA for a copy fo their notice letters of suspension in use at the time or check whether the client has it?). If that is refused then you could go for a JR.

Thankyou so much for this, it gives me something to work with, i really appreciate it.

Your client may also be a victim of maladministration. there are some links below which might get you started. in birmingham, the benefit service 'imploded'to quote the senior benefits officer between 2000 and 2003. From my own experience, benefit problems here started building up in 1999 before 'tipping point' was reached, and occurred, but gradually reducing, through 2004, when the recovery plan was put into operation. it was not practicable for the LA to indentify and rectify every case that had gone wrong, and administrative problems on this scale leave a legacy for some time to come, on a case by case basis. BCC appears to act at times, as if the event never happened, and of course, many staff involved would not have been there at the time and do not have knowledge, but these problems, which are a matter of historical record, are not undone by a magic wave of the wand.

if you have strong evidence suggesting your client was entitled to HB, and reconstruction from available records cannot throw light on a valid reason for disallowance, during a period when the benefit system was seriously maladministered, the LA cannot ignore that fact, and on a balance of probablity, there may be a strong presumption in favour of your client's entitlement.

i have had a couple of cases as late as 06/07 involving council tax re-billing and summons for 2000 - 03 written off on the above basis. it's not clear in your post when your client's problems surfaced, but if in 2007 she is having problems with 2000 - 2002, it might be worth exploring the possibility...

jan

http://society.guardian.co.uk/housing/story/0,,409763,00.html

http://www.islingtonlaw.org.uk/Publications/Annual%20Review%202003.pdf

"Throughout the year the problems caused to
residents in Islington by the maladministration of
housing benefit by ITNet reached a crescendo. It
has sadly become routine but important work for
the Unit to act for tenants facing possession
proceedings or eviction by the bailiffs due to rent
arrears which were due entirely to delay in
assessing the tenant's housing benefit or to errors
made in the assessment."

http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/reports/accessible.asp?ProdID=E7D52C9C-6245-4293-92E7-99E17883668C

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/5F88FB69-351D-4E3B-9C9F-7CB341F0EE4E/0/005306.pdf

Just an observation.

The periods in dispute appear to be from a time when "benefit periods" were still in place. Therefore, if "periodic review" is a reference to the non-return of a renewal form, the DARs for suspending / termination won't be engaged. HB/CTB would simply have ceased at the end of the "benefit period", irrespective of whether the clmt was properly entitled to IS.

On the other hand, if this was the case, it seems very odd that the LA isn't able to say so.....