Hi people - sorry to drag up Hinchy yet again, but I'd like opinions on whether it would help this lady:

Husband (on AA) hospitalised in December 03 - turned out to be for a long spell (eventually had to go into nursing home care). He was no longer able to deal with his own affairs. He had physical problems with mental health intermittently affected. About mid-January, after 4 weeks or so of hospital, wife asked advice of Social Services about hubby's AA and her own CA, which she was actually receiving, being much younger than him. We told her to report circs to both AA & CA sections of Disability & Carers Service. She phoned both of them - she's German and although she understands English well and speaks it fairly well, she can only just about read it if it's simple and she can't write it at all.

CA responded pretty promptly with a questionnaire form, which she returned quickly after getting help to fill it in. Mind you, they didn't suspend CA payments meanwhile and eventually tried to bill the lady for an O/P. They backed down when we drew attention to the date of issue of the questionnaire. AA, however, did not respond and payments continued into the couple's joint bank account for the whole of the hospitalisation period (ie until mid-April). Wife says that because CA did not take action to stop HER payments until April, long after she sent back the questionnaire, she thought that hospital didn't affect either benefit.

Come April hubby was about to be discharged to nursing home care (LA part-funded), so wife was advised again by us. She said CA/AA were both still in payment into their joint account, so we said to tell them again. This time, both payments were promptly stopped!

As I said, CA appear to have accepted their error in not stopping payment on first notification. They haven't said so, but the O/P recovery attempt was in August, replied to promptly and nothing heard since - so I think they've found the questionnaire and that's the end of it. So, finally getting to the point: AA will say they've no record of the Janary 04 phone call. I've obviously got balance of probabilities arguments for them: she told CA, so isn't her story of also telling AA all the more credible? They will argue, possibly, that she was confused and told CA instead of them about hubby's admission to hospital. So, what about Hinchy? Hubby's name and NINO would have been on record for the CA claim. In the event that it's not accepted that she rang AA, could it be argued that CA should have made sure AA knew the facts (same Secretary of State - same Disability & Carers Service, even).

Views, please. NB - I should mention that wife is not appointee for AA/RP.

Jim

PS Hinchy hasn't been overturned in the Lords without me noticing, has it ?

at some risk of sounding like corporal jones of dad's army, permission to hark back again to DHSS days, sir?

clerical pensions section.
receives hospital admission notification.
links to clerical case, for action on retirement pension entitlement.
checks for prescribed notations in case paper for AA and supp ben.
if found, written notification sent to relevent section.
phone call made to supp. ben section anyway, just in case...(this -not in written instructions, but 'good practice'.)

point to note, Sec of State had procedures laid down for the protection of public funds. he might want to argue that the procedures don't absolve an individual from their responsibilities (disclosing the fact) -this has often been argued in sec 74 cases when PODOP procedures failed...but, as a responsible secretary of state, he institutes procedural safeguards which trigger reliably on receipt of the information, whatever its source. It's all to do with taking responsibility, and understanding that his department is dealing with people, and not for example, biscuits.

it might be interesting to request a copy of the part of the procedural code or guide or whatever it is called these days, from the CA people, dealing with action to take on receipt of notifications of hospital admission. if it doesn't include instructions to notify AA/DLA, i think it raises some interesting questions. what is the reason for not having procedures for preventing overpayments? does it represent a shift in the SoS's view of his responsibilities? if so when did this occur? and also, is it actually cost effective NOT to take preventative action?

i can't be the only person concerned about the extent to which DWP policy is driven by emphasis on fraud and abuse, when fraud and claimant error estimations are conflated, and the DWP's contribution to that which is categorised 'claimant error'is discounted or unrecognized.

this is the administrative side of the SoS's functions of course. the legal judgement is waited with bated breath... : )

jj

Thanks, JJ. Just back from two weeks' hols, hence delay in acknowledging.

Jim

Thu 03-Mar-05 12:21 PM by shawn

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/cgi-bin/forwardsql/search.cgi?template2=user_details2.htm&output_number=1&news.ID=3395811148 (link edited by shawn)

Oh bother ! NB - stronger words actually issued from my lips.

Jim