Clients included all information of income to LA who subsequently omitted one of the IB from calculation, resulting in substantial overpayment. We have appealed unsuccesfully, arguing that client can not be expected to know the calculation process and could not have reasonably known of overpaymnent etc. Case gone to commissioners.
1) Does anyone have any general advice on how to proceed including how to access any relevant case law.
2) I'm trying to get hold of details of R v Liverpool City Council ex parte Griffiths, March 14th 1990.
Can anyone help please?

This won't be much help, but unless there is a significant subtantive issue not included in the above post, I think you're going to have a very difficult time at Coms.

There are now many HB/CTB CDs of (apparently) similar circumstances where the decision has gone against the clmt. Based on what you have stated, there doesn't appear to be anything that would be new territory. If there is a previously untried angle you are attempting, it may be easier to assist if you are able to offer more info.

Sorry - don't have Griffiths.

Regards

I have emailed Griffiths to Shawn for publication. Its not a very good copy, but should be ok to use in a submission.

Griffiths was ditinguished by Commisione rjacobs in CH2554/2002, but he made it clear in CH4065/2001 that the burden of proving recoverability is with the Council. This was again held to be the case in R(H)1/02.

I would also empahsise that "to realise" in the context of HB Regulation 99 is not a term of art ans so should be given its ordinary everyday meaning. The OED gives the meaning as "to be fully awareof:to undersatnd clearly"

Councils are apt to argue that it means simply "to be aware of", which (wrongly) implies a far smaller threshold

thanks to stainsby -

here's the liverpool/griffiths judgement ...

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/liverpool_griffiths.pdf

My usual joust with stainsby on the meaning of "realise" etc...

The use of the word "realise" is preceded by the words "...reasonably have been expected to....".

In my view, the wording makes it quite clear that there is no requirement for a clmt to have ACTUALLY been aware. The only requirement is for it to be REASONABLE to EXPECT the clmt (or other parties in prescribed circs) to "be aware".

If the clmt was/is of "normal" intelligence, and assuming the LAs notifications were not utterly diabolical, I think you'll have a very difficult time in succeeding at Coms (at least based on the info given so far).

Regards

Kevin D has unwittingly just proved my point, notiwithstanding his point about resonable expectation.

The reaonable expectation must be that the claimant is/was fully aware of and understood clearly that there was an overpayment, not merely that there ought to have been some awareness.

In the present case, the claimants previous knowledge of how HB/CTB works must be relevaant, as would his level of literacy, and the clarity or otherwise of the HB decison letters.

As prefessionals we all understand that IB is taken into account in full as income, but many kinds of similar income can be disregarded, eg DLA, Attendance Allowance, War Pensions. The burden will be on the council to show that the claimant understood those distinctions

Thanks to all that replied. You have been very helpful.

I would be a little careful in relying uppon Griffiths.
See CH 2554 2002

"The decision of Mr Justice Nolan in R v Liverpool City Council, ex parte Griffiths (1990) 22 Housing Law Reports 312 at page 317 is regularly cited. Citation of that decision is unnecessary and can be unhelpful. The facts were very different from any that will come before appeal tribunals - they concerned the estimates of entitlement to benefit that were used in the transition to the housing benefit scheme from April 1988. Also, the point for which the decision is quoted is actually the argument of counsel recorded by Mr Justice Nolan."