We have had a number of people facing loss of disability living allowance and overpayments when they have been trying to do a bit of permitted work.
Disability Living Allowance have argued that overpayments are recoverable due to a failure to disclose a relevant change of circumstances. We have argued that disclosure to JobCentre Plus should be sufficient.
Reg 3(11)(f) decisions and appeals regs defines an "appropriate office" as "in the case of a person who is, or would be, required to take part in a work focused interview, an office of the Department for Work and Pensions which is designated by the Secretary of State as a Jobcentre Plus Office or an office of a designated authority which displays the one logo". CIS/4848/2002 would seem to support this. Has anyone else tried this. I recently argued this at tribunal but the entitlement appeal was allowed so the issue wasn't relevant.

I can’t see that working after the decision in Hinchy. Disclosure must be to the issuing office, i.e. the Disability Benefits Unit in Blackpool.

It would be far better to attack the DWP on the ground that starting work is not of itself a relevant change of circumstances. The DWP must make out the ground of supersession, i.e. that there has been a change in the claimants care needs/mobility problems and they must have robust evidence for that (not just hearsay or tittle-tattle).

And even then they cannot recover retrospectively unless they can show that it was reasonable for the claimant to have reported the change earlier.

Regards
Paul

Hi Paul,
I appreciate what you say about Hinchy,and everything else. I'm sure that the DWP would agree and argue that disclosure should be made to Blackpool.

Hinchy involved non disclosure. They looked at S 71 and R 32 Claims and Payments regs. I don't think they looked at the decisions and appeals regs. As far as I can see this situation was not considered.
Obviously the general rule has to be that disclosure it to the issuing office etc but then why is R (3)(11)(f) there?

Regards
Ant

Hi Ant

My view is that the definition of appropriate office in reg 3(11)(f) is for the purpose of a revision request under reg 3(l)(b)(where appopriate office is mentioned) which allows that request to be lodged with a jobcentre plus office if the claimant is a person subject to the work focused interview regime.

Paul

working is not a circumstance that pevents one getting DLA; only a change of physical condition woudl do that. so unless the client has improved their physical conditin, what hve they got to report?

e.g. someone in wheelchair, gets a job, still in wheelchair with same needs.

Exactly, I agree with Nevip and Claire. Work is IRRELEVANT, unless the person is, for example, working as a golf groundsperson, walking several miles a day, whol;st on H.R. Mob., or some such thing!. Disclosure is simply not required, to any office, it is not a rel c. of circ's, (unless the D.W.P. are indeed able to strongly argue that the tasks required by the job are indeed inconsistent with the existing award.). What is the job?.

The job was welfare assistant at a school but appeal was allowed, still on HRM so no overpayment to consider.
I posted the question to test whether in such cases the fact that JC+ are aware of the situation means no duty to notify DLA i.e. adequate disclosure. I think Nevip/Paul is right. There is a different Def. of "appropriate office" in the claims and payments regulations.

Starting work is not a relevant change of circumstances for disability living allowance. The level of disability decreasing is. The Department may argue that starting work is a clear indicator that the condition has improved (or the award was wrong all along) but it is not proof. As I have pointed out before, if work was relevant to the receipt of DLA there would be no special extra amount in Working Tax Credits specially for people getting the highest rate of the care component.

I'm getting a number of people coming in where this is the problem - ggrrhh...

I recently saw a news item on a web-site called benefitsandwork which says that:

Stopping a claimant's DLA on the grounds that they have found a job and 'the work they do is incompatible with the entitlement conditions for DLA' is 'unacceptable' DLA decision Makers have been warned in a confidential bulletin from their bosses

On a tangental issue it is my understanding that, since 2006, doing Permitted Work is not counted as a relevant change of circumstances in itself for incapacity related benefits; though claimants still have to report any change that is likely to affect their benefits entitlement to Job Centre plus.

So a client who gets I.S would have to report it if their earnings exceeded the £20 disregard, but not necessarily if they were only in receipt of Incapacity Benefit.

Permitted work in excess of the £20 limit still has to be reported to make it permitted work and can of course usually only last for up to 52 weeks or it stops being permitted and makes the claimant not incapable of work. So to that extent starting work is relevant to entitlement.

Permitted work in excess of £20 no longer has to be reported to DWP (the 42 day notification requirment has been abolished). There remains a general duty to report a change of circumstances (which starting paid work clearly is).

For a claimant on IS a failure to report earnings over £20 (assuming the £20 earnings disregard applies) would be a failure to report a relevant cahnge of circs. As earnings below £88.50 would not affect IB alone, arguably this is not a relevant change of circs (until the 52 week permitted work higher limit period expires) as it will not affect entitlement. In all cases claimants would be well advised to report starting permitted work anyway.

On the issue of work being incompatable with the award of DLA see CDLA/179/07. Although this case concerned a leisure activity rather than work the point of law at issue must be the same.

On referral back to a new tribunal the claimant won his appeal. Interestingly, despite DWP having failed miserably to address any of the points of law in Comm Williams decision they are still considering an appeal aginst the new tribunals decision!