After an appeal was done t' other day, I spoke to the chairperson and asked informally what she would do if faced with a matter were none of the demands of Sch 6 placed on LAs when recovering overpayments were met. She was of the opinion that it would be perfectly acceptable for her to adjourn the matter so that the LA might meet their obligations retrospectively.

Shame! I thought. Does anyone have any difinitive decisions demanding the proper application of Sch6 before recovery or no recoverable overpayment? Please.

P.S. The overpayment has already been recovered.

Thank you in hope.

P.P.S. The matter is awaiting a hearing.

Off the top of my head I'm sure there's a little thing like natural justice popping up here. There was a case R v Thanet DC ex parte Warren Court Hotels Ltd (2000)was partly concerned with the information supplied in a decision notice.

One quote from it:

"I find the respondent's failures to comply with the provisions of Sch 6 caused significant prejudice to the applicant"

Let me know if you want a copy.

Ignore the location on this posting, I'm not there anymore

hi phil ... will need to re-register (@ http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/dc/dcboard.php?az=register) to change org details - best wishes ... shawn

Phil is right re Thanet. However, that also gives the crux of the argument.

In short, so long as the person affected is not caused significant harm or prejudice by the shortcomings of notification letters, then the clmt doesn't have a leg to stand on. Any number of HB CDs confirm this to be correct - most referring to Haringey / Awaritefe. To emphasise, the crux is harm / prejudice.

In fact the Thanet case & Haringey cases cover the same ground on this issue. The legal arguments were broadly similar, but the FACTS were different. Therefore, the cases are more or less consistent with the interpretation of the law on the issueof notifications.

Further, as was pointed out in a very recent HB CD (can't recall the number offhand), the Commr observed that even if the notification was rubbish, it did not prevent the LA from renotifying the clmt properly and simply starting the whole process again.

So, in short, I think the Chair you spoke with is correct.

Regards

Thank you all very much with this. It's been very helpful. The matter here is slightly different in that the LA concerned gave no decision at all. They simply turned up at the claimant's doorstep who let them in. She was told that the backdating of the retirement pesion from Eire meant that she had been overpaid H & CTB and that they had claclated it at, in the region of £2000. The claimant gave them a cheque and they left. It was only some time later did I discover what had happened and I lodged an appeal. Even to now, no-one has issued a written decision to my knowledge. I'm sure one will appear in the appeal bundle but has never been sent out.

Do you think that this differs in any way. Someone has said that it might be a matter for the ombudsman. Any opinion on this anyone?

By the way, is everyone familiar with the Eire pensions thing?