I always thought that L.A.'s couldn't suspend HB while waiting for a Tax Credit notification, or "hang on" to a new claim while waiting for the notifs; and that when the lump sum backdated TC came through , HB have to treat it as capital. But I know 2 L.A.'s who are doing this- one example of a change of TC causing a suspension then an HB overpayment; lots of e.g.'s of "hanging on" to the new claim. I can't find anything in the regs actually saying they can't do this. Has anyone had similar experiences and if so,any useful arguments to challenge? cheers

Hanging on to new claims while tax credit comes through is definitley unlawful. The regulations are Reg 89(2), regs 83, 86 and 93 of the new HB Regs.

Note that Reg 86(2) and Reg 93 makes it mandatory to decide a claim within 14 days or make a payment on account.

LA's often try to say thata payment on account is only mandatory if the cliam is complet ie they have all the documents that they want. Thisis not what Reg 93 says. It refers to an imptacticability that "does not arise of of a failure of the claimant without good cause to furnish such information, certifcates, documents or evidence and information as the authority reasonably requires and has requested..."

If the cliantnsimply does not have the tax credit decision, there can be no failure on the part of the claimant.


Supsension is a bit more tricky because under the D&A Regs the LA can suspend if a question has arisen as to whether or not a decision should be revised or superseded, but if the Revenue have not made a tax credit decision, there can be no grounds to revise or supersed the HB/CTB decision, and so no question has arisen so therefore no grounds for suspension.

If the inland revenue have made a decision, but have not notified the claimant, the LA can get the details itself from the Revenue. If the LA dont try to do so, then I would refer them to Commissioners Decisions R(I)2/51 and R(SB)33/85, both of which held that there is no need for corrboration in English Law and that the claimants uncorroborated evidence can and should be accepted. You can find these decisions on rightsnet

The decison making process is an inquisitorial one and authorities should endeqour to decide claims on the best evidence avaiable. This includes using their own resources to get evidence that is reuiered or is desirable in instances where the claimant can not get that evidence or has difficulty doint so. (See the House of Lords decision in Kerr v Department for Social development of Nortnern Ireland (Reported as R104(SF))

There is no doubt that arrears of tax credits count as capital (HB Reg 46(9))