Can anyone please clarify whether a claimant has a duty to notify the local authority of an annual increase of State Retriement Pension during as assessed income period? The LA notification letters do not specify this as a relevant change the claimant needs to notify them of. In fact letter states all changes of income should be notified to Pensions Service not them, of course Pension Service already know about increase.

I thought during this assessed income period it's down to the Pensions Service to inform the LA of the assessed income figure?

Client has overpayment decision going back a couple of years. Caused havoc with CTAX. any suggestions appreciated. I have already appealed the decision, awaiting full explanation.

sorry if this is an obvious one.

I have had a number of similar cases that I appealed, won every single one. I would guess that a number of LA's are still not familiar with the rules.

The AIF has to be notified to the LA by the Pensions Service, and the date of the change of circumstances will be the date it is notified.

Ask the LA to hold off any recovery action while the appeal is still pending

thanks for that one. Ill probably get a few more cases then?! great cant wait.

They will not suspend CTAX action though. Only put account on hold for a 'while', but a 'while' is no good when the backlog currently stands at 4 months as far as i am aware!

weve had a discussion with the LA about this, and will no doubt continue to have more. Relucant to suspend CTAX action if there is no gurantee that CTB is payable and getting much stricter now.

thanks

If there is an AIP in place, then the customer can win the lottery, sell their home, go on a world cruise - whatever - the CTB/HB award remains in place until the end date of the AIP. It's worrying to think that there are still LA's who don't quite grasp that, and even when it's pointed out to them, they refuse to acknowledge their error.

Not quite true Mike.

Some income types, including SRP, will be taken into account at the rate they are increased as the DWP now this. Income types which have a forecast rate of increase will also be assumed to increase at the rate (e.g. pensions with a fixed percentage rise).

I know that you cant legally defend a liability order if a CTB claim has not been decided, but this is different because a (wrongful) decision has been made that excess CTB has been allowed and that it is recoverable. What is more, the LA has taken premature action to recover it via the CTAx account.

It is very bad practice to recover prematurely whil an appeal is still pending and the Ombudsman consitently takes a very dim view of LA's who do it. There is some case law in the wider benefit context that suggests that authorities have no legal right to recover until an appeal is finally determined (see R(SB)5/91 and CIS/2654/1999)

If the Council go ahead with the application for the liability order, I would defend it, and make a complaint to the Ombudsman at the very least. I would also consider JR

I am not impressed by the CTAX sections argument about there being no guarentee that CTB is payable as it is the same corporate body making all the decisions ie the Council. This to me is a case of the Council behaving oppresssively. In the housing and housing benefit context, the Court of Appeal in LB Southwark v Sarfo 19 July 1999 were very critical of the Council's actions in evicting a tenant who had an outstanding HB claim that they failed to determine.

I think you have a good case for a fairly large compensation award if teh LA go ahead with an application for a liability order

Regulation 65 of The Council Tax Benefit (General) Regultions 1992 Duty to notify changes of circumstances.

If your client was not getting any Pension Credit top up, then they have to inform the LA of increase in their state pension.

Regulation 59B The Council Tax Benefit (General) Regulations 1992 Change of circumstances where state pension credit in payment. This covers situations where the pension credit goes up or down and the local authority are notified by the pension service of the change.

Don't want to nitpick, but the Regulation is headed "where state pension credit is payable", not where ...is in payment"

This means that for example where no assessed income period has not been set eg where it is predicted that an additional pension will be paid within a year, but pension credit is then awarded, and the decison subsequently superseded, (resulting in a retrospective termination of the PC award) and notified to the LA. The change of circumstances is the date the LA are notified

Just to clarify, claimant only getting savings credit.

as for challenging the LA, we are trying. We were recently informed that the LA had excused the CTAX section from their fair debt policy, where they would previosuly suspend action pending appeal outcome. Raising revenue being a real priority and I believe there are additional financial incentives for colelcting the money within that tax year.

The CTAX section have stated that they are only really willing to suspend action if they are given some indication by CTB that claimant likely to be entitled. In cases where there is a new claim, CTB dont seem to do this as they may as well process the claim! Obviously in this case CTB do not think that the claimant is entitled.

They have suspended action so far but i expect that they will insist that he makes payments very soon, at which point I will challenge their policy. thanks all will let you know the outcome.

If the LA are daft enough to go to Tribunal, the Ombudsman usually considers that a delay of more than a month or so for the Council to produce their submission would of itself anoount to maladministration. Add that to premature recovery and the LA are even more guilty

i can't say i know how the administrative arrangements work between the pensions service and the LA, but I believe there is a duty on the secretary of state to notify the LA...

have a look at reg 17 of the HB & CTB (State pension Credit) Regs 2003 and go to reg 15 (watch out for funny numbering)..it says (1)that in the calculation of income in savings credit cases only, the relevant authority shall (subject to provisions), use the calculation or estimate of the claimants (or partner's) income and capital made by the Secretary of State for the purpose of determing that award.

(2)The Secretary of State shall provide the relevant authority with details of the calculation or estimate etc
(3) including the amount taken into account as net income.

(4) the relevant authority shall modify the amount of the net income provided by the SoS only in so far as necessary to take into account
(a) the amount of any savings credit payable
(b) to (f) a bunch of other stuff, none of which appear to apply in your case,(you will need to check) and which does NOT include annual uprating of state benefits.

in other words, the LA must use the information provided by the Pensions service, but modify it in certain changes of circumstances only, uprated state benefits NOT being one of those changes of circs.

reg 65 (6) and (7) of the CTB (Gen) regs specify the changes a person on pension credit has to report - annual uprating isn't one of them,

and para (8) states that the specified changes need only be reported to the designated office, which I assume is the Pensions Service Office, so there is no requirement to report any changes to the LA.

So the revisions and o/p calcs appear to be incorrect. no modification of net income is appropriate for annual up-rating.

if you also have a look at CTB (gen ) reg 59B, para 1 is talking about changes of circs where state pension credit is in payment and there is a change in the amount of state pension credit which results in a change in the amount of CTB payable. there are specific provisions in (5A) for people on savings credit only. much of this reg is taken up with effective dates in various types of changes of circs, appearing complicated, but really, all relating to precisely what mike shermer is saying in his post above.

your LA's CTAX policy appears to be in conflict with, and undermining several other policies, but in particular, damaging to government policy on helping pensioners out of poverty - and possibly lacking in safeguards when the overpayments section is somewhat befuddled. the government really hates it when militant pensioners decide to go to jail rather than pay council tax they can't afford (and may not owe), because it gets pensioners really riled up and they do marching and stuff, which is very unnerving for governments - mainly because, with increasing numbers of people not even bothering to vote, they are the most reliable block of voters left... : ) and if it's government pressure on revenue maximumisation which is digging up their other policies, well...would their best friends tell them so they can do something about it? (cultural reference to an anti- BO soap ad, most here will be too young...)

i expect there might be a circular somewhere explaining AIPs etc more digestibly.

you might be able to help the elected councillors keep the officials accountable by briefing them on the problem, and Age Concern, National Pensioners Convention and TUC might also be interested.

jj

There are two exceptions where an LA is not required to follow the Pension Service ETD (in addition to modified income):

1) where the Pension Credit award is clearly wrong AND where the issue has not been considered by the Pension Service (Hamilton principles potentially apply).

2) in Savings Credit cases (with no Guaranteed element), where the claimant's capital increases to an amount exceeding £16,000.

In both instances, the LA is able to make its own decision independently of the Pension Service.

Regards

Thanks alot for your advice. Thats pretty much clarified it for me. Ive have acutally had another case since, virutally the same facts.

I am in the process of complaining to LA about other cases where we are struggling to persuade CTAX to suspend action. Ive got a few cases now. And will def take on board suggestions to challenge further. cheers