Clients HB claim given to security guard at local DWP office as part of new claim due to move to new property & change of circumstances. Claim missing & now subject to backdating appeal tommorrow morning.
Anyone know if giving claim to security guard will discharge duty of disclosure to appropriate office?

Mon 12-Dec-05 12:28 PM by ken

CIS/610/1998

concerned a vaguely similar situation. A security guard apparently told the claimant he did not need to make a claim for IS, which led him to believe that a claim would not succeed. Commissioner accepted that the claimant was entitled to rely on what the security guard told him, even though the guard was not involved in dealing with claims. Might be relevant to your case.

I think an important distinction depends on who initiated the contact. For example, in our DWP, the security guard approaches claimants and asks 'can I help you...?'. In those circs, I don't think there can be much doubt.

However, if the client approached the security guard, then the tribunal might see things differently. It might be worth your going into your JC+ to see how they do things...

First, is the person (or his/her partner) claiming IS, IB/JSA or ICB. If not then a claim form must be delivered to LA directly (Reg 72 (4)(b) of HB Gen’ Regs). If on any of the above benefits (or waiting to hear following a claim) then can deliver to DWP (Reg 72 (4)(a).

Second, is disclosure effective? In other words, is security guard an officer of the DWP? In CIS/610/1998 the commissioner said that a security guard was an officer of the DWP in terms of Reg 19 of the Claims and Payments Regs, for the purpose of giving out (or failing to give out) benefit information.

Therefore, I would strongly argue, following CIS/610/1998, that a security guard was an officer of the DWP for the purposes of handing in a claim form if the security guard intimated that s/he was a person who, while acting in an official capacity, could accept receipt of a claim form.

The problem of course being that DWP office security is now (I believe) "outsourced" - far be it from me to draw any connection between this and the strange loss of the claim form, but it may be a consideration now.

The security guard in CIS/610/1998 was "sub-contracted", Commissioner said the important thing was that he was acrrying out public functions for the SofS.

Fair enough

It is immaterial who the Security is employed by - as I recall the the local JPC switch boards were sub contracted out as were/are the post rooms in BA offices.

Non of these internal arrangements are generally known by the public, so as far as they are concerned if it moves it's part of JCP....

As an afterthought, does anyone know whether the newer call centres are directly employed ?

An interesting point about the call centres...

From recent liaison, I got the impression that they were directly employed, but that they are specifically not expected to give any kind of advice about benefit entitlement. This is on the basis that they are merely operating a phone script. Suggests that there could be rich fields of argument about what was said on the inbound and outbound calls once JobCentre Plus rolls out nationally.

Generally, any private organisation carrying out work for a government department is carrying out public functions and would be fully amenable to JR on grounds of maladministration. Thus enforcement or quashing orders could be taken out against them.

All the established legal principles applicable to the DWP would also apply, such as no specific duty of care which would found a cause of negligence when giving (or not giving as the case may be)advice, for example.

Thought I'd let you all know the Tribunal outcome - after a mind numbing analysis of whether the LA's decision to suspend clients HB on moving had constituted a supersession - quote the Chair "although not absoltutely imperative to the case it's interesting to explore all angles" - 60 minutes later finally accepted clients submission that claim had been duly made & as susequently lost by DWP good cause backdating allowed. When I referred to CIS/610/1998 the Chair waved a dismissive hand and said "never at issue".

Thanks for all the help on this one.

Congratulations....

For future reference, if it is of any help, the key to this issue is in the wording of the regulations. The words used is 'delivered or sent'reg 72 of the HB General Regs 1987. The burden of proof the claimant has to discharge is that the claim was 'delivered' to the DWP office.

As an aside....and in danger of stating the obvious.....

If the Tribunal found the original claim to have been made, backdating is not at issue. It's simply a case of that claim being processed.

Regards