mike shermer
Welfare Benefits Officer, Kings Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council, Kings l
Member since 23rd Jan 2004
|
RE: just a quicky ...
Fri 22-Jan-10 01:28 PM |
The original subject of this posting highlights one of the most common reasons as to why claimants are suddenly come face to face with overpayments demands ie, the LA stating that the claimant had failed to notify it of a change in circumstances. In more than a few cases we've seen in past, the LA has known of the ease in which they can access information, but have failed to use it.
In this case the claimant was asked to supply proof of income which they dutifully did in so far as they could, WTC figures not being available at the time. What should have happened next was that the absence to be able to supply those figures should have been noted on the HB Notepad, with a reminder for the DM to follow up with a reminder letter within a reasonable period.
If the claimant if considering appealing, then make sure they obtain screen prints of the notepad for the period in nquestion. If no notes relating to WTC are there then this may be evidence of the LA's inability to record case notes accurately - if there are case notes relating to said WTC, then it makes a mockery of their fraud allegation. l Therefore the LA were clearly aware of the circumstamces appertaining at the time. For them, in the fullness of time then to subsequently arrive at a finding of Fraud, and blithely ask the claimant to pay an adpen together with the alleged overpayment is frankly outrageous. The use of an Adpen normally signifies that they think they have enough evidence to take to the Court if necessary: here they don't seem to be able to prove the Earth is round....A reference to the Ombudsman, after following the LA's complaints procedure, might well prove to be productive.
However, this case does raise another issue. The Regulations relating to the requirement to report all and any changes of circumstanges which may affect your Benefit, were written at a time when there was no electronic contact between LA's on the one hand and the various DWP agencies on the other: this I strongly suspect that this was the reason why the onus was firmly placed on the shoulders of the claimant.
But since those dim and distant days, we have seen the introduction of the original "Rats" link between LA's and JCP, and the CMS link between LA's and Pension Credits. Through the magic of electronic wizardry one can now look up and confirm (or otherwise) a claimants award within a few breathtakingly short minutes. Every few months it seems we are seeing further links being introduced between various agencies under the guise of being anti fraud or anti terrorism mesures, or anti something or other ..........
Given the increase in such methods of confirming a claimants identity/entitlement whatever, do they not make the original Regulations (as referred to several chapters ago) increasingly obselete?. Why should the onus still remain with a claimant when an LA can access the evidence being sought far quicker and more efficiently.?
|