Can anyone clarify what's is the difference between a defective claim and an incomplete claim. Text books seem to use these words interchangeably and what are th

This is somewhat oversimplified, but (for HB & CTB) there are two "types" of decision that are available to a LA:

1) Defective claim: In most cases, this is where the instructions on the form have not been followed (incomplete answers and/or failure to provide evidence as requested on the claim form). A clmt can be asked to rectify any "defect" in this context.

OR

2) Claim not defective in terms of "1" above, but "incomplete" in the sene that the LA has requested info / evidence NOT originally requested on the claim form and the clmt has failed to respond appropriately.

In "1", and contrary to what is thought by some, it is still lawful for a LA to make a decision that the claim is defective; end of.

However, once a LA has sought info / evidence in the circumstances set out in "2", it is no longer possible for a "defective claim" decision. The only alternative available to a LA is a so-called "outcome" decision (i.e. based on income / cap / household etc), whether or not inferences are drawn in reaching that decision.


Hope the above helps.

It is arguable that a decision that a claim is defectve is nevertheless appealable because R(IS)6/04 applies as much to HB as it does to IS

I don't think that Kevin is arguing otherwise. I suspect his use of the words "end off" was just intended to indicate that the decision that a claim is defective is the full decision in itself.

I.E the decision is just "you are not entitled to benefit as your claim was defective".

i think (hope) we are all agreed that a defective decision is still appealable.

Yep, both types of decisions are fully appealable.

thanks for clarifying the issue. much appreciated.