I have a client who suffered a mental breakdown and shut himself off from the world. He therefore did not sign on jobseekers so that ceased and also Housing and Council Tax benefit.
I got his GP to write a letter to explain why he was unable to claim Housing Benefit. Which he did. It was quite a good letter expalining that my client had a breakdown in July last year and was suicidal and also that the Mental Helath Crisis team had been involved.
The H/B department have advised that this is not enough evidence and want to know why he didn't call into their office to claim. They also said they want more details on his situation at the time.
Could anyone advise

If the GP states he has /is suffering from mental illness I would expect backdating to be allowed.Is he still suffering mental ill health now -if so that would show continuing 'good cause'. They would need evidence of his income for the period in question -presume this would be bank statements if he had no other form of income, it seems obvious why he did not attend their offcice -he was too ill!

"and want to know why he didn't call into their office to claim."

It's so obvious that it rather beggars belief that they ask! Clearly someone who hasn't the remotest idea what a mental breakdown can do to people.

You could get his local Councillor involved and see if he can have a word in the right ear.

I would not like to venture an opinion on whether this LA is being reasonable or not as I do not think there is enough detail to go on. There was a discussion on HBINFO recently on a not dissimilar case. In that case an auditor challenged a backdate that the LA had granted in respect of a claimant who had suffered a heart attack. The debate centred around whether that in itself (while clearly a serious, traumatic and disruptive occurence) presented enough evidence in itself of "continous good cause". The period of backdating in that case was very short (days!) and I believe the auditor backed off.

I don't know what period of time we are looking at here but I sense it is several months. I can see why an LA might think it needs to cover itself by looking a little bit behind a serious illness and trying ascertain how precisely it prevented the claimant from acting on his benefit claim sooner than he did THROUGHOUT the period of backdating he is claiming for (which is the precise test in these cases).

The Government has taken the financial penalties off backdated awards, but there has always been the implied threat that they would reimposed if LA's were seen to be too "profligate", and it seems that external auditors are casting their beady eyes over backdates at the moment. However, if the LA in this case is saying the evidence presented so far isn't enough then clearly it should stating precisely in what ways it thinks it is deficient.

I am not saying I agree with this and I can quite sympathise with those who say "for God's sake he's had a breakdown!". But I can see what the LA's angle on it might be.

This sounds rather like the sheer obtuseness I have come to expect from my own local authority. However, AndyRichards may have a point: if the housing benefit section wants more information, they should be able to say what details they need.
Apart from that, it might help if you described to them the symptoms and effects of a mental breakdown: how it destroys motivation and willpower; lack of ability to make even simple decisions; peculiar sensitivity to normal stresses; possibly self-neglect. Okay, maybe they should know how a mental breakdown is likely to affect somebody, but it should help to spell out to them why exactly your particular client couldn't get to their office to fill in a claim form.