Tony, you are thinking of two cases from a higher level than the Commissioners or Upper Tribunal.
The one about failure to disclose is B v SoS for Work and Pensions <2005> EWCA Civ 929. This was the case that confirmed that as long as a person ahs been placed under an obligation to disclose a particular tyrpe of event, any overpayment resulting from a failure to disclose is recoverable, even if the claimant did not understand (as B herself who had learning difficulties) the importance of the instruction. However it was essential that a clear and unambiguous instruction about that particular change must have been given, or the duty did not arise, and it wa up to DWP to prove that such an insruction HAD been given.
The one about the difference between "you should tell us" and "you must tell us" is very much a variation on that point, since it turned on whether the use of the word "should" imported an unambiguous instruction, or merely a recomendation. This is another Court of Appeal Case - SoS for Work and Pensions v Hooper <2007> EWCA Civ 495; and the Court of Appeal said that "should" did not constitute a clear and unambiguous instruction.
|