Morning.......

Any advice on this would be greatful!

I have a client who has received a letter from the Council with regards to a proposed OP of HB.

My client states the HB claim was made by his wife and the signatures on the claim were fraudulently done by her and he was not aware that the claim had been made.

My clients wife had severe MH issues (a report from her GP has been obtained to verify this) and died a few months ago, before the OP came to fruition.

My client states that his wife also made fraudlent claims for credit cards in his name which he did not know about, he states she dealt with all paperwork and he does not know what else may come out.

The Council are arguing that as there was a certificate of earnings form from his employer he would have known about the claim.....my client says his wife must have sent it to the head office and he never saw it.

The Council also state that HB was being paid into a joint account....my client says he thought the money was his wife's......and didn't question where it came from.

As a matter of law......is my client liable?

At face value, no claim has been made by your client. Neither did he cause, or allow, the actions of his late wife. If that is correct, I can't immediately see how any OP can be recoverable from him.

But, I can understand the LAs scepticism...

If the claim was made in the wifes name the certificate of earnings is of little relevance because its just a document provideing evidence to support her claim. There is as yet no such thing as a joint claim for HB so even if the wife forged the signature, its still irrelevant, unless the Council are accusing your client of misrepresentation.

On the other hand , if the wife forged the signature in order to make it look like your client was the claimant, whilst its still up to the Council to prove its case, there will be some evidential burden on your client to show that his signature was forged.

If the Council are accusing your client of misrepresentation, there will be at least an evidential burden on him to rebut the Couccil's allegations, although the legal burden of proof is on the Council

I suspect the LA are looking at Reg 101(2)(ii)

"Where sub-paragraphs (a)(i) and (ii( do not apply, the prescribed person from whom it is sought is-
(i) the claimant
(ii) in a case where a recoverable overpayment is made to a claimant who has one or more partners, the claimant's partner or any of his partners.

However, this would only apply in very limited circumstances. What are the LA saying caused the overpayment?

I am assuming that the overpayment decision is fairly recent.

Since an overpayment cannot exist until the relevant decisions have been made, and Reg 101(2)(ii) is written in the present tense, it cannot apply to your client as he has no partner. His former partner has died

Ive obtained a copy of the original claim form and a copy of the renewal. Our client is named as being the main claimant with his wife as the partner but the form is completed by the wife as its definatley her hand writing.

H