Correction (no effect on the basic issue though).
Someone has kindly pointed out that my recollection of the JR case was wrong in one respect. Which, considering I have a transcript of the case law in question, is just a mite embarrassing .
The following is quoted from the person who brought the oversight to my attention (it has been marginally paraphrased):
"It was argued on behalf of the clmt that the 52 weeks ran from the start of entitlement rather than the date of the claim for backdating, but this was rejected by the judge.
Instead, he found that the regulations sought to place a 52 week limit on backdating, but, due probably to poor draftmanship, failed to do this. Effectively, until the DWP changed the legislation in response to the case there was no limit to backdating at all."
The legislation was duly changed from April 1996.
|