Hi folks, hope you can help.

A local authority has not yet bothered to implement the changes from the abolition of the benefit periods so that they still end benefit whenever they find out that income support has stopped.
They are aware that they shouldn't be doing this but changing their practice is not a priority! The problems caused are exacerbated by the authority making overpayment decisions without calculating underlying entitlement and ploughing on recovering these straight off, although they will reduce them later if a claimant provides details. They know this is wrong too but again are not bothering changing their pracrice for administrative reasons.

The difficulty is that whilst individual cases can get sorted out when they are pursued, the practice does not change and only very few of the people affected can challenge the decisions. On top of this there is a lot of stress caused to claimants. How can we best force them to bring their practices in line with the law?

Try doing a group of complaints to the Local Government Ombudsman. The Ombudsman can't force them to change their practice, but if she gets a number of very similar complaints she may well do a formal investigation. If she starts awarding compensation then the Council will have a very good reason to sort themselves out.

Nick

I think you are confusing benefit periods under Reg66 of the HB Gen Regs, which have been abolished, and, entitlement ending under Reg 67(1)(a) or (b).

Under Reg 67(1)(a) or (b) a benefit period must come to an end if IS stops. The LA, however, must invite, under Reg 72(14)(a), a person to whom Reg 67(1)(a) or (b) applies, to make a fresh claim.

What tends to happen sometimes in these cases is that the LA don't 'invite' the person to make a fresh claim. In other words they do not send the person a new HB form. Thus the claimant can get into rent arrears.

Your LA will be acting unlawfully by not inviting new claims (see CSHC/352/2002) and this will be a highly significant factor in backdating requests.

Also, a person has not been invited until the invitation/claim form actually reaches him/her.

Regards
Paul

Sorry, to avoid confusion. Reg 67 has been revoked and replaced with Reg 65A which is of the same effect.

Isn't that the old rules. Benefit periods only end now when I.S. stops and an extended payment period is paid. Everything else is a change of circumstances and all that is needed is income/capital details/proofs, not a new claim form. Claims can then be ended through the Desicions and Appeals regs about requesting further info,if that info is not provided. They shouldn't be cancelled just because I.S has ended.

Neil is right reg 65A was just bunged in as a mechanism to avoid having to make extra changes to the extended payments which was really a bit of lazy draftsmanship. It is the only situation in which benefit can be ended on the stopping of IS so if an authority finds out someone is no longer on IS they should suspend benefit and then try to establish the circumstances. If the authority is blatantly saying they know about but are willfuly ignoring the law is there no way they can be instructed by the DWP to sort themselves out? Can they be reported to the BFI or some other sort of auditor?

Sorry, I should have been more specific. Neil and Damian are right. Reg 65A is narrower in scope than the old Reg 67 but will still catch a substantial amount of people. However, the LA should not automatically end the benefit period but should make enquiries as Neil suggests.

If the LA are ending benefit periods in circumstances not allowed for under Reg 65A then a letter to the DWP legal dep't at the Adelphi may wake them up.

Paul