I have a client who was a full time student living alone and receiving Income Support, Housing Benefit and was exempt from Council Tax. When he finished his course in June 08, he continued to receive Income Support and Housing Benefit, but his exemption from Council Tax ceased so he became liable.

The LA are refusing to award backdated Council Tax Benefit for the period Jun 08 to Sep 08 on the grounds that he did not complete a claim form for Council Tax Benefit until Sep 08, and he hasn't proven 'good cause' for it to be backdated.

I feel that the existing claim for Housing Benefit (the claim form is generic HB + CTB) should cover him for his Council Tax Benefit too. We are going to an appeal tribunal, and wondered if anyone had any ideas on case law / legislation that would help my argument?

Many thanks

lisa

Wed 11-Feb-09 01:31 PM by stainsby

Your problem is that a claim not longer subsists once a decision is made on it ( para 2 of Sch 7 Child Support Pensions and Social Security Act 2000)

Decisions on claims for benefit
2. Where at any time a claim for housing benefit or council tax benefit is decided by a relevant authority—
(a) the claim shall not be regarded as subsisting after that time; and (b) accordingly, the claimant shall not (without making a further claim) be entitled to the benefit on the basis of circumstances not obtaining at that time

He would have initially been refused CTB as he had no liability, and so in June 2008 he would need to make a new claim.

The LA may have determined that no goog cause for the late claim has been shown, but good cause can arise from a mistaken belief reasonably held (Walls Meat v Khan (1979) cited by the Commissioner in R(P)1/79. Similarly whilst ignorance of itself may no necesarily amount to good cause in R(P)1/79 the Commissioner also says:

." It is no good quoting a principle unless you go on to apply it. In the present case the local insurance officer quoted the principle that ignorance is not of itself good cause but seems to have acted on a different and wholly erroneous one, namely that ignorance is of itself fatal to a plea of good cause”

The same Commissioner also wrote at para 7 of R(G)2/74

“…Whether a person has good cause for a late claim depends on the facts and circumstances of the particular case and an a priori approach to the question – an approach which avoids considering the facts and circumstances but seeks to apply some fixed and automatic principle – can in many cases lead to injustice"

In a case such as this, ignorance and mistaken belief will amount to good cause, given that there are so many misconceptions even among the professionals

I think that you will find this difficult to argue.

The form may be an easy way to claim both HB and CTB, but the two claims are seperate claims for seprate benefits.

The only possible argument that I could see that you *may* be able to make is that when your client completed the claim form he was in fact claiming both benefits and you have not yet had a decision in respect of CTB.

Although the decision will, when made, of course be that he was not entitled, as he was not liable, it does give you an argument that he did not claim his "new" CTB earlier as he was already waiting for a previous claim to be decided.

This is, however, quite a weak argument and no use at all if the claim form has a box that you have to tick to claim CTB which was not ticked.

Jeff

Somewhat puzzled on two issues.

On what grounds did a single full time student become eligible for IS and HB?

And when did the LA issue a coucil tax bil? (It seems odd if he did not claim CTB when he got the bill)

Hi Derek,

The claimant is a young person who left care at 18 years old, lives independently (estranged from parents) and in full-time non advanced (further) education, so receives Income Support, EMA and Housing Benefit.

Two bills were issued on 30 June 08, one detailing exemption up to 26 June 08 and one detailing liability from 27 June 08. reminder was sent on 21st Aug 08, claimant telephoned the Dept on 27th Aug 08.

lisa

We have had a couple of similar appeals for care leavers in rented accommodation turning 18 and becoming liable for CT as well as rent. We lost both on the argument that their earlier HB claim included a claim for potential future CTB (but won one on good cause).

Richard Atkinson

I have a suggestion which I suspect might bare fruit?

Having many years experience of HB/CTB from an LA standpoint, I would reckon (as is often the case) that the claim forCTB was not in fact ever determined - and so remains outstanding!

Often when processing aclaim for HB/CTB (and though seperate legally distinct benefits, are usually applied for on the same application form) if a person is not liable for CTB only the HB side of the claim is ever determined, the CTB side is just ignored. This is increasoingly so when HB assessment officers are subject to performance targets (a nil ent letter takes time to write, and so are not written). Some HB computer sytems also can't process the claim as the person is not liable and so there is no amount of Ctax to calculate liability from).

Check with your clients/LA's to make sre tht a nil ent leter was issued, if not then the claim remains outstanding, and no has what could be argued a change of circs' in the amount of liability (which the claimant is not responsible for reporting so you can't be caught out there either!)...

Hope this offers some help to some of you???

Thank you for all your help and suggestions, the tribunal is 2nd March so I'll let you know how we do.

lisa

This was an interesting tribunal.

The client found a benefit decision letter dated March 2008 where he had been awarded full HB and full CTB - the HB Manager said that this was in error as they hadn't applied the council tax exemption at that stage.

I argued that my client had never received notification that his council tax benefit had been stopped, HB argued that this was sent by way of the council tax bills.

The judge then agreed to adjourn for 5 minutes to enable HB to phone the office and seek evidence of a council tax benefit stop notice. She returned and said that she had been unable to find this, but still felt that they were in the right. However, due to the circumstances and the fact that the outstanding council tax is only £85 they would be prepared to write this off, oh and they would also right off the £60 summons costs for progressing debt recovery on the outstanding debt (that had occurred due to their error).

The judge made a decision to adjourn the hearing indefinitely.

hmm.

lisa

HB Specialists - I like your argument, it's interesting.

Putting aside the specifics of this case for a moment though, I wonder if it really helps? Let's assume CTB was claimed and a decision was never made, so as you say the CTB claim is still outstanding. The date of claim will still be 'way back when', and they will not entitled to benefit from the Monday following the date of claim, the designated start date.

There is the possibility that the still-outstanding claim could be treated as an advance claim, but only if they will be entitled within 13 weeks of their claim.

So, appealing though this idea of a long-lost, still-outstanding claim is, won't they still have to treat it as made back when they were not liable for Ctax, or at best only 13 weeks before they became liable?

Fri 06-Mar-09 04:17 PM by stainsby

The point is that under para 2 of Sch 7 of the Child Suport Pensions and Social Security Act 2000, a person is not entitled to benefit (without making a further claim) on the basis of circumstances not obtaining at the time of the decision.

The Act says nothing about entitlement at the time the claim was made.

The time limits for making decisions are to be found in the secondary legislation and one of the consequences of a breach of the time limits by an LA may wll be to exempt a person from making a futher claim if entitlement would otherwise have been denied if the claim had been decided at the proper time