the above statutory instrument comes into affect tomorrow 09/02/06, as LA's will receive 100% subsidy instead of 50% on backdate periods for HB/CTB.

does anyone think that LA's will get a bit more lenient on backdating?

hope so.

As subsidy is not a relevant matter for consideration when making a backdating decision, it should make absolutely no difference at all.

Right, that's the "planet cuckooland" response.....

The "real world" response is that some (but not all) LAs will just keel over to avoid extra work. Especially if the decision is appealed and the work required is remotely in-depth. Simple as that. However, those LAs would be well advised to be wary about subsequest audits / BFI attention etc.

Regards

100% subsidy for backdating has been in place since April 2004 so I assume the new SI just continues that arrangement.

In the memorandom it states:-

Since April 2004 subsidy has been paid at the rate of 100% to local authorities to reimburse them for correctly paid rent allowance, rent rebate and council tax benefit. Other amendments included in this Order are:

• increased subsidy for all properly backdated housing benefit/council tax benefit claims from 50% to 100%,

• an incentive for local authorities to reduce levels of local authority error overpayments,

• paying local authorities a contribution in recognition of discretionary local schemes for war pensions disregards,

• to cushion the impact of implementing the subsidy reform package DWP introduced a transitional protection scheme.
---------

Reading the above gives an indication that it wasn't the case. The change of amount of subsidy for backdating HB/CTB will be applicable to standing backdate decisions or appeals far as April 2004 which will be actioned on the 09/02/05.

In any event more money for LA's.

Hi BradW

The financial year 2004/05 saw a major change in benefit subsidy arrangements, some of which were beneficial to LAs, some of which were not.

As with all such changes there were some winners and some losers. There was a transitional scheme in place to make certain that no one lost (or won) too much all in one year.

The SI, which I have now had the chance to read, just puts in to law the operational arrangements that have been in place anyway since April 2004. The coming in to force date of tomorrow just reflects the date that final audited claims for the financial year 2004/05 have to be returned to the DWP for financial adjustments. The payments on account that LAs have been receiving since April 2004 already reimbursed backdated benefit at 100%. Any impact on backdating decisions by the increase in subsidy levels should already have been seen by now.

Jeff

Apologies, just read S2/2005 again.

Another angle: claimants should state "well your getting all the money back anyway so just pay it" in an appeal or backdate request.

Isn't it ironic that LA's get 100% subsidy on LA and DWP error for overpayments.

I should point out that although the subsidy has increased, the requirement in the HB Regs (72(15)) still calls for "good cause" to be shown.

If we are tempted to fall into the "pay it as it doesn't cost us" camp, we will be found wanting if the auditors come inspecting.

philad is right
From the DWP Subsidy Manual.

From April 2004, the rate of subsidy for awards of benefit backdated, under regulation 72 (15) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 or paragraph (16) of regulation 62 of the Council Tax Benefit (General)Regulations 1992 is 100%

The objective is to encourage LAs to be rigorous in establishing whetherthe criterion of ‘good cause’ in the backdating rules has been met. Subsidy in all backdated claims is subject to the external auditor’s certification that continuous good cause has been established.

i find this quite worrying. decision-making on HB backdating should not be influenced in any way by considerations of subsidy. if the only 'quality control' influence on decision-making (since the abolition of the CAO?)is in the context of audit pressure on accurate subsidy claiming, doesn't this improperly influence or interfere with the statutory decision-making process? would audit be concerned with 'poor' decisions _refusing_ back-dating and causing underpayments?

There's no need to worry really. (Well I would say that wouldn't I?). When dealing with any request for backdating, the requirement has always been that "continuous good cause" has been established. Jmembury kindly quoted the legal reference for that. Any refusal to backdate because of subsidy influences would soon have been found wanting at any appeal.

In the past, LA's had no discretion in backdating if good cause was shown and would have to backdate. They would then face the cost of 50% of any backdating award as the subsidy paid was only 50%.

The DWP recognised the unfairness of this and amended the subsidy arrangments in these cases to 100%. The rationale being that a backdate would be awarded because it met the legal test (i.e. good cause) so a LA should not incur a penalty.