i have a client who was in temp. accom. between January and February 2004. The LA wanted proof of his income for this period which he was unable to provide until July 2004. My client has mental health problems and can't remember if he responded to LA letters. His case was closed in July 2004. He was unaware that his rent was unpaid for the six weeks that he was in the TA.

In March 2005 he gets a letter from the temp. accom. people to say he owed them money. I applied for back date, it was refused under this reg.

My question is when does the 52 weeks continous good cause begin. Can i argue that as the case was still open in June July 2004 that I am within the 52 weeks limit. i have had a look in the regs, it states"the period over which the backdating occurs is a past period of up to 52 weeks before the date of claim for backdating is made"

do i have a case or have i misunderstood the regs?

I feel you have a good cause for backdating as the person is a vunerable person and could not be expected to manage his affairs under hbr 72 (15( the good cause starts from July04

Hope this helps

a person can apply for back-dating when he or she has made a late claim for benefit.
your query suggests that your client claimed his housing benefit on time, but there was a delay in providing verification of his income at the time of his claim.

it seems that local authorities routinely instruct people to complete claim forms, and request back-dating, when there is no legal requirement. it's a local authority comfort blanket. i'm afraid they take their comfort blanket seriously and try to insist that the rest of us do too.

you say that in July 2004, your client's case was 'closed'. you don't say that his claim was disallowed, and even if it was, if he also provided the evidence in July 2004, the local authority could have revised the decision on receipt of the evidence, so i assume by 'closed' that you mean his claim was put away without a decision being given on it. a lot of local authorities followed this practice, using various terms, like 'closed down' or 'set to dead'.

this was a big problem, and the subject of a a decision by a tribunal of commissioners, in CH 2155/03, which ruled the practice 'ultra vires'- the LA does not have the power to 'close down' the claim and should give a decision on it.

it sounds as if your client made a timeous claim - and has not received a decision on it. you could ask the LA to have a look at his claim again, in the light of the commissioners' decision.

you also said that your client was unable to provide proof of his income until July 2004. obviously, i don't know what difficulties your client had at that time, but the other thing to bear in mind is that the verification framework operated by LA's is an administrative requirement, not a legal requirement, and the LA could have accepted your client's evidence on his claim form with regard to his income at the time of his claim, and it may have been reasonable for it to have done so. there are commissioner's decisions to that effect - i don't have the references off-hand.

it's rather sounding as if the LA delayed dealing with your client's claim for administrative reasons, then administratively closed it down, with the result that a vulnerable mentally ill claimant has been denied his legal entitlement to housing benefit. shouldn't really happen, should it?

i hope this helps.

jj

Just to add another point as well. It is perfectly acceptable for the Local Authority to extend the period of time in which the claimant has to reply. If your claimant was unable to provide the information until July 2004 because of circumstances beyond their control and then provided the information say within a couple of weeks then I would argue that it is reasonable for the Local Authority to extend the time in which he had to supply the information.

They could then pay out the claim without needing any recourse to good cause and backdating.

thank you for all the advice given bb