The client was given an o/payment decision. This is because she has received a slight increase in her wages. She has also made a DHP application and supplied payslips which covered the wage increase as part of the application . The DHP application goes to the same address as all HB correspondence. These payslips are available on the screen to the HB customer services. Now HB office is saying client did not notify them about the wage increase.
The client states that she was unaware that her benefit could decrease as the wage rise was small. She also thinks that submitting payslips to the HB office was sufficient to make them aware of change of circs, even though these payslips were supplied for purposes of DHP

I am not sure whether to argue official error or is there any requirement on claimant to advise about c.o.c in a separate, specific letter.

Your opinion would appreciated.

Wed 30-Jul-08 03:06 PM by jmembery

I think you have strong grounds for arguing official error as long as the DHP claim was made soon after the wage increase.

However, if there was a delay between the wages increasing and the DHP claim (plus wageslips) being submitted you may find it more difficult to argue that an overpayment that starts some time earlier was caused by the HB section not acting on them.

If she notified the office of the change on time there is a strong argument for official error because the duty is to notify the office, not a specific section of the office see CIS/1887/2002

Thanks for your replies guys. Much appreciated.
I established that client's wage increase happened end of August, the DHP application was made end of December, payslips submitted covered Oct, Nov, Dec.
So, the HB office found out in December, had payslips going back to October but did not re-assess the claim.
Obviously, client did not notify in good time but notify she did.

I will have a go at official error. Right?

Based upon those dates don't think you have much chance of arguing that the whole of the overpayment was official error.

You have a much stronger case for arguing that there was official error from December when the change was reported.

oh, yeah, of course. Will do.

Even if it's accepted as official error there's the question as to whether it was reasonable for the client to think that her benefit was correct despite the fact it had not changed even though her income had increased.

She might have thought the ongoing payments included a DHP, or she might not fuly have understood the income disregards, especially now that there is a £25000 in year window in tax credits

Wed 06-Aug-08 08:41 AM by jmembery

Looks like you might be able to argue that the whole overpayment was LA error after all. See CH/559/2008 paras 16-18.

Decision seams strange to me but might well help you.

interesting! but I can't find it in the briefcase and have no other resources. Can someone post a link or PM me the decision, please?

I only have a hard copy (I just received it today) but can fax a copy if you give me your fax number.

great, thanks! 01895 269 698

Fax Sent.
Jeff

Fax received. Aren't we a super duper bunch