65 yo client in receipt of GPC. Just been released from prison after fraudulent claim and overpayment of PC £34,000 (plus HB and CTB). Debt Management now want to recover at £150 pm or court action threatened. The max they can recover from benefits is £11.60 and they've not done this so seems like they're intent on using common law.

I've done an income and expenditure form with him and he is paying £40pw to various doorstep collectors (Provi, Shopacheck etc etc)and has a minus disposable income. I've told him he should tell these creditors to go whistle and offer a substantially reduced amount but he wants them off his back after dealing with them for years. It was these type of debts (originally considerable amounts) incurred by his wife which influenced his working whilst claiming in the first place.

I've sent the i&e form to Debt Man but looks like they intend to contine with enforcement proceedings.

I don't know whether to proceed by way of jr or defend it in court. What do you think ?

It's my understanding that once an overpayment has been found recoverable then it can be enforced through the county court as if it was a judgment debt. There obviously an be no actual "defence" to the claim since the issue is res judicata (didn't we have a query on here somewhere about that?) However I'd have thought you could have got some sort of disposal hearing in front of a DJ to decide on the rate of payment.

My personal tactic in ordinary debt cases where litigation is threatened is to make the creditor a realistic offer of payment and reserve the right to bring the letter of offer to the DJ's attention if proceedings are commenced on the issue of costs. This would be if the DJ didn't order a higher rate of recovery. But I haven't faced your situation. There is however a general power to apply to the court to vary the terms of an existing court order, so the after the event scenario is not out of the question.

I'm not aware of any client ever having been sued after this warning, but I have no idea how effective it would actually be. It ought to mean that creditors reject a reasonable offer at theri own risk: a DJ may agree with your assessment.

Does anyone else have experience of this sort of case?

ps the right is not a common law one but statutory , found in section 71 (10) of the Social Security Administration Act, which says they can enforce it by execution or otherwise as if it was ajudgment debt. I have no idea but someone out there probably does if that then means they only have 6 years as they would if it was a judgment debt.

1. On ordinary debts, if a reasonable offer has been made and rejected and the creditor is threatening Court action, we do as Ariadne does - say action will be defended as to costs. This generally puts them off going to Court. I've a vague memory (it was a long while ago) that one did go to Court and the judge decided they had to pay their own costs.

2. I've no experience of DWP overpayment cases going to Court. I've always assumed they would have to go for a CCJ in the normal way. Am I right is thinking from Ariadne's post that that is not so - in other words they are assumed to already have the judgement and can go straight to enforcement?

3. In this particular case the client presumably has no assets to protect, large debts and a minus disposable income. Has he considered benakruptcy? Obviously, the fraud debts (DWP/HB/CTB) would not be covered but he could get rid of the others if they are still substantial.

Thanks for all your responses but resolved in last few mins. They've just rang to say they'll accept recovery from PC at £5.64 pw. Beats me why put the client through all the worry by sending letters to say they want £150 pm and even respond to our letter and i&e form by saying they intend to proceed with court action.

Good to know reason has prevailed in this case.

In relation to Derek's question, if an overpayment has been found and not successfully contested (ie via the appeals procedure), then I presume that DWP can apply to register it with the county court to make it enforceable - like an employment tribunal award - though s 71 doesn't actually say so. They don't have to sue. And it isn't 71 (10) it's 71 (9). There doesn't seem to be a 10, which confused me.