Could any one help me with this query.

In revising Housing and Council Tax Benefit decisions does the revision/supersession need to be distinct from the notification letter sent to the client or can they be one of the same. Since I have submitting a technical argument that this has not been done and therefore the overpayment recovery action is not valid.

There usually has to be some evidence that a decision maker has actually ‘sat down’ and revised/superseded the operative decision. This will usually be recorded on an internal document. Then a new entitlement decision must be notified to the claimant. If no new entitlement decision is notified to the claimant then an overpayment cannot be recovered.

Tribunals now have more powers than before to remedy defects in the revision/supersession process, so those old technical arguments that we used to revel in relying on (in DWP cases) are now a thing of the past I’m afraid. A new entitlement decision by itself would be sufficient evidence that revision/supersession had taken place. A tribunal can reconstruct the rest.

However, what remains crystal clear is that a new entitlement decision must be issued before an overpayment can be recovered.

Therefore, does that mean that there has to be internal records kept by Housing Benefits making the decision that show how they have arrived at their decisions in their appeal submission document?

No, the new entitlement decision should be sufficient providing it is clear from all the appeal documentation that a proper lawful revision/supersession was carried out in a coherent fashion.

It's been a bit of a myth that LAs are "required" to keep a specific decision-making document as to how a particular decision has been reached. In fact, it this was a requirement in every case, an already difficult job would be even more time consuming than it already is.

In practice, for most LAs I've worked at/with, the general approach is to note day-to-day "bog-standard" changes / new claims etc on a diary or action sheet (whether electronic or paper) with the briefest of details - e.g. "CofC: WTC & CTC inc wef ".

Only in the more complex cases is there a *possibility* of more paperwork - this generally tends to be awkward capital cases / reg 9 cases / overpayments arising out of investigations etc. In such cases, even these notes tend to be more with internal reference in mind than subsequent disputes. Of course, there are one or two LAs who take a more formal approach. However, and perhaps unsurprisingly, it can lead to ppl getting bogged down in unnecessary admin, rather than concentrating on the substance of the case.

Thank you for your help on this matter, you have given me clarity to my case.

And Mr Jacobs has had the last word on this, for now. See CH 3801 2008.