hai kevin - this is starting to feel like my favourite chapter of Peter Pan, the one with the argument with the Neverbird, which never fails to reduce me to gales of laughter...i think i might have posted a link before....
ok - i see there is a certain amount of difficulty... i even read differently to you... i picked up on Tony's last paragraph, you picked up on the second para...maybe i'll get back to you on that, but i have to point out to you that you made assumptions about the moral argument...
"<<<I'm suggesting it isn't necessarily that straight forward and the original post suggests the LA has considered the "separation of functions" argument when making the decision that a) there is an overpayment and b) it is recoverable.
The crux revolves around that single point. If the functions were sufficiently distant, the HB section had no reason to be aware of the OTHER department's maladministration / refund etc. Therefore, the LA, in its HB function, did not pay HB in error.">>>
they may have considered it, but did they reach the right conclusion? that is not a hostile question by the way <just thought i should mention in case reasonable adjustments are called for>. if they got it wrong, it could cost suge amounts to put it right. one wrong decision and the knock - on effects can spiral... i'm suggesting any number of bright ideas, but humbly suggesting a reflection and re-think, and in the meantime, the LA do the decent thing for sue's client, accepting that the facts of this case will speak more loudly than the arguments, and may well distinguish them... i certainly don't think they can be ignored. i wonder how long it's been since this thing started for Sue's person... there has to be a limit to the length of time a relevant authority can intrude upon the circumstances of a person's life before making a decision about whether the decision that there is a recoverable overpayment was correct or not and he has to repay it. especially when that person has vulnerable mental health,..
and is very vulnerable indeed, in the sense of bad *stuff* 'really' does happen to them, it's not just a meaningless stock phrase or a 'categorisation' box.
i'd suggest there is a clear need for decisions affecting vulnerable persons like Sue's client to be made correctly at first tier level and it seems that effective mechanisms aren't in place or embedded in thinking.. the onus of proof in overpayment decisions is a significant one,and i don't see it being greatly recognized. the facts of Sue's client's experience are relevant - and sound like they are stacking up. his interests have to be considered by the authorities, and i can't see how anyone considering the impact of maladministration upon him could conclude other than it must be brought to a close pronto, even if the principles remain in contention.
the law can be brought into disrepute. no housing benefit should ever have been paid to this gentleman - he had no liability for the charges, which the local authority imposed in error. the award was therefore erroneous in law and he had no legal entitlement to the payments, which should have been met by the PCT. i'm surprised you'd want to argue that an error in law is not an official error, when carried out by a local authority in its HB function, and that it has no REASON to be aware of other Deprtment's maladministration. do you think you can make that stick? srsly?
you're going for a separation of a relevant authority's equality duties, duties of care and human rights obligations from an LA's HB function? i'll say this for you, you love-god... you have some balls...woo-hoo! : )
|