My client was receiving additional IS for her daughter until the daughter recently left FTE. Daughter receives DLA including high rate care component, and so my client's IS award included DCP and EDP, and on leaving FTE daughter was able to claim IS for herself.

There was a five-week delay between daughter claiming and being paid IS, during which time my client continued to receive the additional IS for her on her own claim. My client notified JC+ when her daughter was awarded IS. The daughter's claim was 'back-dated' for the five weeks she'd been waiting since the date of her claim, and an overpayment has been raised for the additional IS my client had been receiving for her daughter in the meantime. Owing to the additional premiums that my client was entitled to, the overpayment is substantial.

I guess this is a duplication of payment which carries no right of appeal, although CPAG doesn't quite make it clear that duplication of payment rules can apply when two different claimants are involved.

If it's not a duplication of payment, then I think the issue is when my client's duty of disclosure began. If it was when her daughter claimed IS, she was late. If it was when her daughter's IS was first paid, she wasn't. In the post-orderbook era it's not so easy to know definitively what changes a client can reasonably be expected to know should be reported.

I know that if an IS claimant loses their entitlement to the SDP because someone claims CA for looking after them, they do not lose the SDP for any period over which the carer's CA award is backdated but I guess this is not analagous to my client's situation.

All offers of help gratefully accepted.

hi peter

i'm not too sure of this, but off the top of my head, i think they could have abated the arrears of IS to the daughter by the amount of dependant's increase paid for her, so there may be a possibility of sec. 74 o/p on her claim - but i don't think it can be applied at all to the premiums - because the overpayment of DCP etc isn't caused by any late payment of prescribed income, it's a question of entitlement to the premiums - so i think your client's o/p must be section 71 on failure to disclose material fact. when dtr ceased to be a member of the family?? left school? claimed in own right? paid? as you say, what are they told?

btw i think there is a right of appeal against sec 74 - just that there's little scope other than accuracy of the decision - worthwhile when it involves deps, because they're technically v. horrible...