Tenant is currently on Incap Benefit and partial Housing Benefit,the L.A have been advised by his landlord (housing association )that he has received an increase to his current I.B entitlement,they have now suspended his HB award pending confirmation from the tenant that IB rate has changed.I had pointed out to L.A that there seemed no reason to suspend HB as IB rate could be confirmed by them if they accesssed the Remote Access Terminal,they agree but are insisting on the tenant completing a change of circs form.Can anyone offer advice or opinion as i cant see any reason for this request or indeed the suspension ?

Notwithstanding the fact that the LA could ascertain the correct rate of Incap Ben by accessing the rats, would it not have been far simpler for someone in the HA to photocopy the notification letter that the client has received and get the tenant to send it or take it to the LA office - or at least advise the tenant to go directly to the LA?.

That's admin gone mad as far as I'm concerned. I sometimes get the feeling that stats produced by the changes and process of notifying are driving decision making in some LAs and reasonable common sense interpretation of the regs have been disregarded. If the increase to IB is a prescribed change i.e. increase after 26 weeks I would argue that the LA should be aware that it was likely to happen and planned an intervention or DWP check to ascertain the rates.

I'm a Fraud Officer so if I find this fussy then it probably is!

I can think of one (er, and ONLY one) scenario that the LA may be trying to avoid.

In the first instance, the clmt has an undeniable duty to notify the LA of a change in circs - IB is a notifyable change (even if it can be obtained elsewhere).

But, in this case, the LA *could* use the RAT. But, the scenario suggested is this: What if the info from the RAT / CIS is wrong? It may well be possible to argue that any resulting o/p is as a result of the LA's actions. After that, it's a bit of a crap shoot as to whether the clmt contributed to the mistake, or if he could reasonably have been expected to realise etc.

By insisting that the clmt should supply the info (as he is, in any case, legally required to do), the chances of an LA error are massively reduced.

In case anyone is thinking that "Kerr" places the LA under any obligation, or that the clmt doesn't have a duty to notify a change in IB directly to the LA, CH/687/2006 is an interesting read (I'm not sure if this CD is being appealed further).

The above is offered purely to suggest a *possible* reason for the approach taken by the LA - I'm not necessarily trying to justify the action.

Regards

One of those paper-obsessed LA's - like mine. What a waste of time. They obviously haven't got enough to do!

I am still waiting for a Commissioner to decide whether or not to grant leave to appeal in CH/687/2006( although I have also applied for the decision to be set aside as documents were missing from the bundle at the hearing)

As for insisting on a change of circumstances form, this is a nonsense as the Regulations do not specify the format to report a change of circs, only that is ought to be in writing.

If the LA already have that information, as it appears that they do (otherwise how do they know about the increase) then its well established that once a change has been disclosed, ther is no need to diclose it again.

In the spirit of empathy, a member of staff at one of our local LA's has just told us that the new 'policy' is that all student claims are suspended pending notification in writing that their student loan should not be taken into account as income over the summer break (on the basis that this is a relevent change of circumstances which the claimant needs to notify them of.)