Am currently doing an appeal and looking for a Commissioner's decision to counteract the one in the shedule by DWP WHich incidentally I cannot find so would also like a copy of that).

The intitial form was incomplete (had been downloaded off the internet and signature page had been ommitted on return). This was a funeral payment with a strict 3 month time limit. Client was then sent another form to complete, which she returned within 4 weeks of previous claim, but NOT within 3 months of the funeral.

I argued that under section (1) (a) and (b) of Soc sec claims and payments 1987, that second claim should have been accepted as claim made in time as it was received within 1 month of the defective claim. However, they have come back with an argument that the original claim was not a cliam defective or otherwise and have gone on to say that reg 6(1A) relates solely to I.S. They have quoted comm Dec R(S)1/63 which I cannot find anywhere on the internet. I am looking for an alternative argument.

Any ideas from anyone who is experienced in this area would be greatly appreciated. Appeal next week.

Hi Lesley

Just a quick reply for now.

What do they mean, the original claim was not a claim, defective or otherwise? If they mean a downloaded claim form is not a proper claim then they have lost the plot. The reg you want to have a look at is reg 4(7).

Regards
Paul

The last 2 pages of the form had accidnetally not been sent in with form and therefore signature was missing. Without a signature they insist it is not a claim.

I've never heard such twaddle in all my life. I'm going for a long lie down in a very dark room.

R(S) 1/63 isn't even listed in Nelligan - it appears they are prepared to go to great lengths to knock back your client's claim for funeral expenses. suspect you will have to ask them for a copy, i can't find it anywhere. it's an old sickness benefit decision, goodness knows what they have scraped up - but i shouldn't worry too much...

they are arguing that the incomplete and unsigned claim was not a defective claim because it wasn't any sort of a claim at all because it was incomplete and unsigned - a circular argument, and i wonder how they would be able to answer the question why it is not a defective claim, and covered by reg 4(7) as paul says?

it's a pity they don't send POs to tribunals, missing the opportunity to discover that 'trip up the claimant' isn't the only game in town...quite shocking that they try it on a funeral claim...

Although an HB/CTB case, CH/1681/2004 may be of interest (para 10 onwards).

In short, the clmt argued that the claim form wasn't signed and, therefore, there was no claim. The Cmmr found that a signature wasn't necessary and all that was needed was sufficient linkage between the clmt and the claim form.

I'm not quite sure if the difference between HB/CTB claim rules and the Claims & Payment Regs would render CH/1681/2004 irrelevant.

On the point of the DWP's contention that the Claims & Payment Regs do not apply to Funeral Payment claims, the logical step would presumably be to ask them for the regs that DO apply.....

Hope the above helps.

No problems Kevin. The regulated social fund is covered by the Claims and Payment Regs. Reg 2(2).

Thanks for this. Have you any idea where i can find this decision as I can't find it on rightsnet, or anywhere else i have looked.

sorry should have been more specific. Am referring to CH/1681/2004

The CD is on its way to Rightsnet.

Thanks to Kevin, CH/1681/2004 is now available on rightsnet.

Thank you very much. I have read it several times and am still unclear on whether it actually supports my argument. It appears to support the argument of the DWP in my case (i.e that my client's claim in not a claim because it did not have a signature). Perhaps I need a lie down!

You're right, its difficult to discern that from the body of the decision. Just refer to paragraph 1 which states: -

"I FIND as fact that the claimant made a claim for council tax benefit and that the information she supplied for the form did not include her husband’s pension. The local authority has accepted that that was an innocent oversight on her part and I see no reason to doubt that".

In other words, the commissioner finds as fact that a claim was made even though the claim form was not signed.

Thanks everyone for advice. Apparantly this claimant was going to be paid but an over enthusiastic supervisor decided to send it to the legal dept who told them not to pay it. The appeal is on Friday and I will let you know how it goes.