Client stops work, notifies HRMC immediately, HRMC continue to pay WTC several months despite client asking them to stop several times.

HB calculates income on WTC , WTC contains usual WTC, plus (in her case) child care costs element of £80+, client has obviously stopped working and is no longer paying for child care, but as mentioned is still being paid child care costs WTC element on top of usual WTC.

Can we argue HB calculation of income should have included deduction of WTC paid child care costs element £80 element????????? (i know she was not actually paying for child care, but for HB purposes the fact the child care element is being included in clients income calculation effectively means HB were treating her as if she was errrrrrrrrr 'sort of'.

Any responses would be really gratefully received

Sorry, but I think you will find it difficult to argue this case.

Reg 28 starts; "This regulation applies where a claimant is incurring relevant child care charges and -"

So if your client is not actually incuring a charge I don't see how the disregard could apply.

Thanks for the response, i have to say that was what i thought, and having read the same reg my thoughts hadn't changed, but out of desperation on behalf of the client, i thought sod it i'll post the message on the off chance, just in the hope i'd misread everything.

The entire weekly amount of WTC might not count as income at all. Have a look at CIS/1813/2007.

I was just re-reading it before i saw your posting Paul, one of the reasons i was blatantly clutching at straws, in posting the original posting, is that the WTC O/P was written off.

She has £1000 rent arrears (lone parent with small child/shorthold assured tenant) from the period concerned, local MP has referred her case to us and HB team, i know HB will argue she received the money and didn't have to pay it back, and should have used it to pay her rent at the time i.e. treat it as income on that basis..

My concern is getting the rent arrears down (for obvious reasons/implications), she was on a very low income (think of this weeks Rowntree report and she's good example) (still is) and its not for me nor is my function to adopt any subjective stance regardless of WTC O/P not having to be paid back. So any HB we can get her would go a long way towards staving off the inevitably.

Got any more erudite thoughts, devils advocate or otherwise, Paul.

Andy

Hi Andy

Entitlement to HB, all other things being equal, is entirely dependent on the relationship of income to applicable amount. If WTC is not counted as income under the law then the thoughts of HB are irrelevant. It is not for them to make moral judgements on what she spends that money on. In fact there is nothing in law that says a person must use his HB to pay her rent, let alone anything else.

You will need to convince (probably at tribunal – I can’t see HB backing down on this) that she definitely told HMCR that she was no longer entitled to WTC, that she did not want it and that she told them to stop paying her. The least you should do is to provide evidence, dates, times if possible, names of the people she spoke to if possible. If she telephoned then get copies of her phone records.

One of the tribunal’s roles is to assess the credibility of the claimant. I have gone to tribunals in the past armed with nothing more than copies of phone records and the claimant’s credibility on the day and won (in overpayment cases on failure to disclose).

Regards
Paul

Hi Paul,

It was the income question that i was stuck on, i feel better now.

Oh gawd, i purposely avoided mentioning its beyond the 13 month max appeal time, still we 're have to follow Kevin D's lead on the HB/CTB 'statement of reasons' loop hole.

Thanks Paul big help, talking of moral judgements its in the eye of the beholder, subject to society's norms etc etc, which makes me think of our Home Secretary's MP's equivalent of non means tested HB award of £24000 for her main home (room at sisters house), as well as the obvious iniquities of the Tax credits system and its dysfunctional relationship with other benefits.

andy

"In fact there is nothing in law that says a person must use his HB to pay her rent, let alone anything else."

I agree with Paul that this is the legal position and further agree that the LAs job is to apply the law as it stands, not as it thinks it should be (paraphrased from CDs).

I terms of legal authority for using HB other than for rent, see DPP v Huskinson (1988) 152 JP 582 Crim LR 620 QBD.

link: www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/DPP_v_Huskinson.doc

Devil's advocate: if she knew she wasn't entitled to tax credits, why did she spend them?

Desperation, debts, and confusion it appears.

Thanks really useful

This was resolved internally through negotiations, we made suggestions to MP (he referred case), and he contacted the Chief Executive of SSDC, who contacted HB/CTB section, and a DHP was awarded for relevant period.

So clients rent and CT arrears were sorted.