can anyone advise if its possible to apply for a supersession in this case.

my client has mental health issues but has only now disclosed them to her GP. IN Feb 04 her CTB expired due to failure to send in review--which she claims she did post.

she finally claimed in May04 --although this claim was also lost for a period until September and CTB insisted it was submitted in August 04 for some time. when date of claim was established as May 04 a backdating request was then refused as she had written the request herself insisting that a claim was made and stating that she had proof. a reciept for handing it in during Jan 04 at a council office was deemed to be a forgery. the backdating request was refused in Oct 04 and she did not appeal agianst it--simply turned up occasionally in offices accusing staff of incompetence and refusing to seek any advice.

it is clear from her behaviour and failure to follow advice or chaise her claim consistantly during march and april 04 and her increasingly irrational behaviour over the following months during which she failed to seek or follow advice given to her, that she was not acting as any average person would with regard to the claim.

she now faces jail as she wont let the baliffs into her house to take goods.

does a diagnosis by her GP give a change of circs grounds that would allow for a supersession?

apart from asking for a write off of the debt is there anything else that can be done?

any ideas gratefully accepted...

elane

Appears that the request for backdating has been refused by decision of October 2004.

What you need to do is try and reopen that decision so that you can get a different outcome.

A decision not to backdate is a final decision for a closed period- there is nothing that can happen regarding your clients circumstances after that decision that is relevant to whether she had good cause for failure to claim on time (ie relates to how she was during the period she did not claim). Also it is not possible to supersede a nil award for a period- such a decision can only be revised or appealed.

The diagnosis by the GP (if it refers to there being MH issues at the relevant time) is not a change of circumstances since the decision but simply more evidence of your clients circumstances at the time of the decision.

It seems to me that what you need is either a late appeal or a late request for revision. Probably best to make both at same time. Client can argue she has reasonable prospects for success and therefore appeal should be admitted.

Martin

hi elaine
the threat of jail and avoiding the bailiffs is very likely having an adverse effect on your client's health. it can't be right that your very vulnerable client is facing jail, over 3 months or so council tax benefit. Does she receive IS?

having obtained a liability order, the council has the discretion to ask the DWP to make deductions from IS. your LA should have a policy on recovery action. in birmingham, there is a policy of not using bailiffs in income support cases - things often go wrong, and i have been able to use the policy to get the bailiffs called off. in any event, the LA should not have a policy which fetters discretion, and it sounds to me as if getting the bailiffs action halted is an urgent matter in your case. ( a note of caution - requesting the written policies before deciding on action could cause a long delay. i didn't get a copy in four years of requests until FOI Act, but the requests alone often did the trick.)

it might also be worth checking that the disallowance was kosher. (many weren't - see CH 2155/03, which wasn't reported until Sept. 04.) was February the end of a benefit period? was the review form for an advance period? what were the grounds for disallowance? did the LA consider extending by 4 weeks as in reg 57 of the CTB regs.

it's worrying that your client's claim was lost until September, and before accepting it was made in May, the LA tried to insist it was made in August. ??? also that the receipt from Jan 04 is deemed to be a forgery. do you accept that it was? your client claimed in May 04, and if the liability order was obtained for the 04/05 year, your LA benefit service appear to have caused the council tax debt the CT debt took her to court for, by losing her claim form for three months.

i agree with Martin about the late appeal, but it may be worthwhile writing to the head of the revenues department, if it is separate from the benefit department, with a copy to the legal department, putting the case in perspective, to get some sensible action taken urgently regarding the bailiffs.

jj

I agree with the above re late appeal/revision, but would add that the threat of jail may be bluff because a means court must first be held

The magistrates must be satified that your client faield to pay either through deliberate intention or culpable neglect.

If your client is not represented in court by a solicitor he will have to rely on a McKenzie friend who oght to be allowed to provide reasonable assistance.

The magistrates must also be made aware of the benefit appeal and so it should be easy to argue that a draconian measure such as sending your client to jail while the appeal is pending would be contrary to natural justice and also in breach of human rights

The magistrates must be made aware of your clients mental health problems and could end up writing off the debt and setting your client free.

thanks everyone. the debt has been written off as the refusal to backdate was revised on the second request last week.