Hallo all

I have been presented with a submission for an overpayment case of HB/CTB classed as fraud which goes back to April 1997. The earliest claim form in the submission bundle is dated March 2003. The "party" concerned was in full time employment from 1996. Although HB/CTB was paid prior to April 1997, recovery is not going all the way back to 1996 (for which there are no copies of claims available) but is going back to April 1997 (for which there are no copies of claims available between April 1997 and March 2003).

I'm puzzled as the council submission clearly states that overpayment occurred because "the party" was in full-time employment since 1996, yet recovery only going back to April 1997. If the reason for the recovery starting in April 1997 is that they don't have any "proof" that the full-time employment wasn't declared prior to April 1997, why start with the date April 1997, when the earliest copy of a claim form in the bundle is March 2003 ?

Decisions must have been made between 1996 and March 2003, but these aren't cited either. The submission states that their earliest records for claims for HB and CTB date from 1 April 1997, but no decisions are provided between April 1st 1997 and March 2003.

There was a serious change of circumstances in 1998 which could have an impact on our submission to the appeal tribunal. But we seem to have a sort of nebulous period from April 1997 to March 2003.

It's sunny in Wales today, but can anyone get me out of the clouds, please ?

It is only a guess, but I suspect the LA concerned changed computer systems back in 1996/1997 and don't have sufficient information on the period prior to 1997 to calculate an accurate overpayment figure.

Thu 30-Aug-07 05:34 PM by stainsby

You should argue that any outcome overpayment decision depends on a valid revision/supersession being made on that to date there is insufficient evidence for either, nor have the grounds been shown.

At a very minimum there should be copies of all the original and the revising and superseding decisions, along with evidence for the grounds for revisions/ supersessions and the outcomes.

Dont forget that the burden of proof is on the LA

For Commissioners decisions to back your argument see CSIS/45/1990, CIS/3228/2003, and CH/181/2006

Thanks to both - have been in a bit of an R2R warp recently