A client reports that her bank wants to charge her £5 per sheet for duplicate statements which she needs to a HB claim. HB are askign for the usual 3 months.

Assuming my attempts to persuade them to waive the charges are going to be unsuccessful - has anyone found any other ways around this problem? The only other thing that occurs to me is the DPA which will still involve a fee but might be cheaper ...

Sue

The following assumes there is not more to this than has been stated.

This will make me popular with LAs.....

By all means try and obtain the statements, BUT, in the meantime, try this approach with the LA.

WHY are statements required for 3 months? If the reply is the cry of "VF, VF, VF", respond by pointing out that VF has no legal status.

HBR06 86 only authorises an LA to require such evidence etc that is reasonably required in order to make a decision. In most cases, this will be the latest bank statement only (to confirm capital). However, if the LA has suspicions about "hidden" income, capital transfers etc, then it would be reasonable to request further evidence.

Also, argue that it is not reasonable to ask a clmt to incur costs in providing documentation. Another approach may be to inform the LA, in writing, that once 3 months (3??) have been accumulated, they will THEN be provided. This would be reasonable, so the LA would not be able to (lawfully) say "one month max; one month max". The one month is a MINIMUM.

If you take all the above steps, and the LA still "close" the claim, I wouldn't hesitate to appeal to a Tribunal.

For what it's worth, about a year ago, I was involved in a case (on the clmt side) in which I argued that only one bank statement was needed. I also challenged the LA to provide the LEGAL basis on their request for more statements and to also give an explanation why they were needed in order to make a decision on the claim. In the end, after a brief sparring exchange of correspondence, the LA caved in. Shame really; I was looking forward to getting this issue to a Tribunal.

Regards

One question that immediately springs to mind is:

Why do the authority need 3 month's statements? The claimant is only required to supply "such certificates, documents, information and evidence.....as may reasonably be required" ("old" Reg 73(1)).

It may be that the authority have a valid reason for asking for three months but not wanting to prejudge the issue I wonder what it could be.

I hesistate for a moment and Kevin nips in and says what I was attempting to (only better).

Kevin,

Unfortunately I suspect what you are saying about VF may be true. (How's that for avoidance?)

Excellent, Phil (re avoidance). lol

For completeness, there are at least 4 CDs where it has been found, to differing degrees and in differing contexts, that VF has no legal status. These are:

CH/0999/2002 (para 1 - also see para 16)
CH/2323/2002 (para 1)
CH/2794/2004 (para 15)
CH/5088/2002 (paras 6-10)

There have been arguments that CH/4390/2003 goes some way to arguing otherwise. I personally disagree - the other 4 decisions are better considered and in a context that, in my view, can be distinguished from CH/4390.

Going off at a tangent, it is ludicrous that the DWP has been able to offer funding to LAs based upon VF compliance while, at the same time, not in any way providing those LAs with a LEGAL basis on which to adopt those very same VF standards. So, LAs have a choice: comply with the law and don't get VF funding OR get VF funding and create an administrative nightmare which can easily bring LAs in breach of the law. Lovely. Fantastic. Wonder how much the whizz-kid inventor of VF got paid? Far too much. Whatever it was. Er, rant over..... .

Regards

From the Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit Security Manual.
Verification Framework, Evidence of Capital.

Evidence specified not available
7.830 Ask claimants to provide the evidence as previously specified in the VF.Exceptionally, the claimant may not possess a current statement and the financial institution concerned might levy a charge for copies.

In these exceptional cases confirmation of the balance is acceptable, as the claimant may not be in a financial position to pay for a copy statement. Ask the claimant when the next statement is due and ask them to forward the evidence then. Follow up such cases to make sure the appropriate evidence is supplied.

Without getting bogged down in the interaction between VF and the actual benefit regs, although some banks while charge for duplicate statements, in my experience customers can ask for a print of all transactions on their account over a given period, which the bank will produce free of charge.

These prints contains all the information contained on a normal statement, and I would be surprised if the authority would not accept these.

stalbansbens is right - often, if the customer asks for a print of all transactions this is given free. However, we have found that often these documents do not include the customer's name (although they do include the account number). These have been rejected by the LA.
To overcome this, we ask the bank for a 'statement of balance' (also free) - this doesn't show any transactions, but it DOES show the customer name and account number, so it can be cross-referenced with the print of transactions.
Bob, as they say, is your Uncle - at least as far as our LA is concerned....

Actually the Security Manual does not specify a number of bank statements. It requires evidence showing the last TWO months transactions. It goes on to say that if this evidence is not available or the claimant WOULD HAVE TO FOR IT (my emphasis), then evidence of the current balance would be sufficient pro tem. The clamaint should be asked when the next statement is due and asked to provide that at the time.

Obviously the Security Manual has no more legal standing than the VF itself, but it is the established guidance for the VF, so a LA would have job justifying not following it.

In any case I thought all LA's would accept that they cannot "reasonably" require a piece of evidence that the claimant would have to pay for.

Sorry bad proofing - the bit in caps should be WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.