Our client uses internet banking. He made a claim for CTB and provided the LA with bank statements printed off on his home computer. The LA refused to accept these as 'original' documents and insisted that he obtained statements from the bank. This request produced an inevitable delay, and the LA has declined to backdate his claim to the original claim date.

Our view is that the LA's request was unreasonable (see CTB Regs reg 72), but does anybody know of any caselaw which defines what, in the 21st Century, is meant by an 'original' document?

This is a real social policy issue, especially with some people only using internet banking with paperless statements. As long as the statement has the claimants full name and address on with bank account info (i.e. account and sort code) and dates and balances the DWP usually accept it. However, LA may have different guidance.

You could argue CH/2198/2008 and that 'Good cause' for backdating is a question of fact, it seems that getting the ‘original documents’ which caused a delay was unreasonable and should therefore based on the facts be backdated.

Regards

There is, potentially, another avenue to try...

How about trying an argument analagous to one tried in CG/1479/1999? In short, that the LA's decision making on the original claim was premature (as they failed to allows a "reasonable" time for the evidence to be provided) and, therefore, an error. In turn, that decision is subject to an "anytime revision".

It may even be worth putting an appeal in, even if late, arguing that the LA's decision was unreasonable (this would be separate to the discretionary "anytime revision" avenue).

The HB/CTB Security Manual gives authorities advice and guidance about what is /is not acceptable etc. There used to be a section specifically on evidence in internet banking cases. I'm sure it referred to stringent security systems by banks so print outs should be accepted if they have name and account details.
I do not think the manual is available on line any more, but maybe worthwhile asking to consult it.

Mon 11-May-09 10:12 AM by jmembery

Yes Paras 7.720 - 7.723 says LAs should accept screen prints, and 7.723 even points out that evidence provided by the bank would probably just be a screen print anyway.

The security manual is no longer avalible on line, has been superceeded (watered down) and was of course only guidance anyway but might prove persuasive.


PS There is nothing in the regs that require documents to be an origional.

Mon 11-May-09 10:18 AM by Ruth_T

Grateful thanks to all contributors., and I'm following up on suggestions. An appeal has already been submitted. Actually, I found the Security Manual online at http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/dwp/2004/hbct/security_manual.pdf

And in the absence of an express statutory provision an LA who insists on original documents in all cases as a matter of course is fettering its discretion and thus acting unlawfully.

I would appeal the decision to refuse the original claim. In my view the LA were being unreasonable. I have often cited Commissiners decissions where it was held that corroboration was not necessary, and it would be worth citing them here. (R(I)2/51 R(SB)33/85 and CP/3037/2004)

There is no question of needing to show good caseu fro backdating as the original claim should not have been refused. In any case a decisison maker should always consider whther or not a new claim shoulld be taken as a revision application (CH/3009/2002)