Maybe this has been mentioned in Overpayment discussions but I still can't get my head around it.
Scenario could be as follows : Tenant is in receipt of Income Support and DLA care, does not report to HB/CTB changes in circumstances such as child leaving school, change in circumstance of an other non dependant (e.g. other grown up child goes to work). But does report to IS.
When change is finally discovered HB/CTB are suspended and stopped and overpayment occurs.
But, in effect, none of those changes of circumstances affect entitlement to full HB/CTB.
Similarly are circumstances where a single parent on IS has an extra child and claims child tax credit.

I just cannot see what the logic is to have these people incur overpayments for not reporting changes of circumstances when in effect those facts were not relevant to their entitlement

Do most LA's than proceed to recover these overpayments or is there a way not to recover?
Has this been discussed somewhere before?
Any help most appreciated

Change in amount of NDD?

Unless I have misunderstood your post; I can see no reason to suspend either.

As a decision maker I would not suspend under cirucmstances you describe.

I may request further details eg. name and sex of child but see no reason to not pay in meantime.

There would be no overpayment or continuing overpayment.

If an overpayment has been calculated what reason did La give?

Recoverability is a non-issue; no overpayment to consider recovering or not recovering.

I agree, there can be no overpayment to recover. There are no grounds to suspend benefit because there can be no question as to whether the orignal decision shouldbe revised or superseded because there has been no RELEVANT change of circumstances.

I have come accross cases where the assessor has wrongly thought that the claimant had to be receiving middle or high rate DLA care before no non depenant deduction can be made. Similarly, I have come accross many cases where no DLA has been input to the computer system when the claimant is on IS and so non dependant deductions are made when they should not be

This is sloppy assessing but it is all too common

Thank you very much for your opinions
But,
The reason given is the fact that the claimant is under a duty to report certain changes in writing to the appropriate office and has failed to do so
I am now looking at Reg 75 and in par 3 it does say that not withstanding being on IS the person has to report about changes to the children. I can't see anything about non dependants but I suppose the general principle applies even though the person is on DLA because:
Although the person is exempt from paying non dependant deductions the amount of housing benefit changes when the non dependants' circumstances change?
Given that, I think it is still not necessary to put claimants into debt on these technicalities ?

This is absurd. The amount of housing benfit does not change when a non dependants circumstances change if the claimant is getting DLA care.

The burden of proving the amount and recoverability of any overpayment is on the LA. The duty ro report changes in circumstances is a general one and a breahc of that duty may or may not be the cause of an overpayment.

In the case you outline there can be no overpayment to recover because:
1) There will be no non dependant deduction
2) If the tenant is on IS all income and capital is disregarded and any changes realting to the children are therefore not relevant

I would be rally taking your LA to task if it was me, they are bullying your clients and you need to stand up for them

I was wondering whether this was one of those circumstances, as in the NDD, which require "superseding at the same rate" as in HBGM 10.675.

Superseding at the same rate is no more. See Wood v Secretary of State CA 21 Jan 2003

Have I missed something here?

Suspending benefit should not cause an overpayment because until there is a revision or supersession decision it cannot be determined that someone has received benefit in excess of their entitlement. Since none of the changes would affect entitlement surely the decision maker should 'refuse to supersede'.

But why suspend in the first place? I don't think it necessarily follows that because a claimant has a duty to report a change the authority then has to do something when they find out about it. In this case there may be a duty to report but I can't see what grounds there would be to suspend benefit.

I think this may be related to the CD about "invalid claims". Wasn't there some guidance issued that said in effect that LAs had to make a decision on an incomplete claim, but could then immediately suspend and require further info? I know this isn't an incomplate claim but since the invalid claims CD our LA has been suspending far more than they ever did before.

I've even seen a case where a claimant was in low paid work and getting some HB, went onto IS/JSA, told the LA and the claim was promptly suspended until they provided proof of IS/JSA. In other words they suspended even though the change notified would lead to more HB being paid.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that LAs have had their power to suspend brought to their attention, and are using it at any opportunity.

So far as this case is concerned there's clearly no need to suspend and no question of an overpayment. If they won't see sense threaten to JR the decision to suspend. If they won't lift the suspension, issue proceedings. Even if they lift the suspension fairly quickly, it might be worth a complaint to the Ombudsman.

I dont agree that an LA can make a decision on an incomplete claim and the suspend in full immediately. A decsion on a claim is an either/or decision. Either the claimant is entitled or not.

Where a claim is supposedly incomplete the Council can make a payment on account, or it can make a decision there and then whether or not the claimant is entitled.

That decision will carry a right of appeal, but it is a contradiction in terms to make a decision that the claimant is entitled to benefit and at the same time purport to say that a question has arisen as to that entitlement ( the ground for suspension)

There could be a question as to the amount of that entitlement if a positive decision is made and so benefit ccould be suspended in part. The practical effect of this will be similar to making a payment on account, but there will be no grounds for termination for failure to furnish information

keith, i think you might be referring to a suggestion that came up in the discussion following the commissioners' decision, rather than out of the decision or the guidance itself. it was largely rejected.
see- (hopefully)
http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=707&mesg_id=707&page=6

getting back to the suspension issue - the reason gerdarhondda can't get his head round it is because the situation he describes is irrational, as well as unlawful. on the last, overpayment decisions must be preceded by a revision decision, and in suspension cases, there isn't even a disallowamce.

on the former -
reg 75 imposes a duty to report changes. it does not give the LA power to mete out penalties for failre to report - which is effectively what is taking place.

reg 13 of the DMA regs (suspension for failure to furnish information etc) leads to 13 (4) - notification by the LA to the claimant of the requirements of the reg, giving 1 month (or longer) to provide the info. it's patently absurd to suspend on _discovery_ of the information, as originally outlined. there is no outstanding information.

but go back to the beginning of the reg - it starts - the authority MAY suspend... it doesn't say shall. the authority, as a public body, is required to act reasonably in decising whether to suspend, and suspending when there is no question arising affecting entitlement is unreasonable. it's not reasonable to suspend when the information the claimant didn't report has no award implications.

it also says that it may suspend in whole or in part... if a question arising affects only the rate not entitlement - eh a non-dep deduction, it is unreasonable to suspend the whole benefit, rather than pay at a safe rate. when did anyone last see a partial benefit suspension?

unreasonableness, irrationality, and abuse/excessive use of power are all judicially reviewable.

one might almost think that some LAs don't approach benefit entitlement questions impartially, and seek to prevent people obtaining their legal entitlement.

i wouldn't be at all surprised if this kind of thing doesn't lead to disrespect on the streets, and I wonder if its possible to get an asbo?

jan

So common here for suspensions for any reason good or bad.

The original question has believe it or not just happened here?

Client single parent on IS with DLA at Middle Care

Son at school turns 16 (2 other children well under 16 still at home)

Suspension letter sent out pointing out eldest son is now 16, and asking?

If client still getting CB for him and to provide proof?

Has child left school and / or is he working, again proof of earnings requested

Has CTC been claimed for him, again proof needed

We refused threatening JR

Council's response?

We will remove this childs addition from clients HB applicable amount??????????????

Were still laughing and waiting.

You are highlighting things that seem to happen because people (staff) at La's may be trying to follow an arbitrary set of instructions that can never cover all circumstances (or coc) in my opinion.

Examples above, as pointed out, are ludicrous, but if La staff do not know in first instance, that this can make no difference to the awards (although may affect Council tax liability) and yet are told to follow a procedure without thinking (or regard to regs) we can see the results.

How about;

1. Child turns 16.

2. Ask for details.

3. No reply.

4. Suspend or threaten to suspend/reduce benefit.


If no regard is given to each individual circumstance, this can happen and as can be seen above it does.


I cannot defend these La's but am sympathetic with their staff if they either have no choice but to follow a procedure, or, do not possess the necessary knowledge to do the right thing, which is actually easier for all concerned.

You're probably right and there was no guidance, just my recollection of the discussion. We have seen a lot more suspensions recently however.

Stainsby - I agree that making a decision and immediately suspending is nonsense, but I've seen them do it in two or three cases.