Is there anything in the rules that says DHP cannot be paid to cover a minimum non-dependent deduction. ? The clients daughter (19) has no income and there are difficulties in presuading her to sign on for JSA which would eliminate the deduction.... Family are about to be evicted because of the increasing rent arrears caused by the deduction.... any info would be helpful please... Nick

There is no rule preventing a DHP being awarded in those circumstances.

Is it ok to ask a similar-ish question?

I saw a client yesterday who is approx £400.00 in arrears as L.A. have been deducting max. non-dependent deduction for a couple of months as the client did not provide proof of his sons income - which was nil anyway. Client understands why NDD applied and accepts it is his responsibility to provide details of applicable change of circs. but reports he did not do so because he suffers from mental health problems and one of his symptoms is that he is forgetful. Client accepts he had letters/calls from L.A. repeatedly requesting this information and he promised to provide it several times but never did. Client wants to "Appeal".

I advised that we are outside 1 month time limit as decision re: NDD made in mid August. Best I could suggest is that we request a discretionary housing payment to cover this period and provide evidence of clients condition by asking his psychiatrist for a supporting letter. Or am I missing a trick?....Can anyone else suggest some other options?

Thanks.

The maximum deduction should ONLY be used when the non-dependant is in REMUNERATIVE WORK (i.e. 16 hours plus per week)and then if his gross income is above a certain level (£338 per week).

If the non-dependant is not in remunerative work then the deduction should be £7.40 per week.

Have a look at Reg 74 Housing Benefit Regulations 2006. (SI2006/213)

An appeal may be an option, even if it is out of time, but it might be worthwhile asking the authority to explain why they have taken the higher rate deduction in light of the wording of the regulations.

Hopefully, they will reduce the deduction and then you can ask for a DHP to cover the £7.40!

....oh and I've moved from Windsor so ignore the bits on the left.

Hi all

Maximum period for appeal one year if its in the interests of justice or has a reasonable prospect of success. Page 1202 cpag manual. sorry to bang on about this but I think its a point worth makeing. seems to me your case should pass bothe tests.

Phil

Hello,

Thought I would chip into this debate...

First of all the appeal period allowed is 13 months, 1 months then a further 12 months (under DMA rules). The longer the period asked for the more compelling the reason (good cause) must be. So appealing is still an option.

The max deduction can be made by LAs where evidence and information has not been supplied within the month time limit. In such case the LA are allowed to make an adverse inference, provided they have asked the claimant to supply evidence in writing and allowed one month. You might want to go back to them and ask for a revision of this decision on the basis of your clients state of mind etc.

Finally, DHP can be paid for any reason up to 100% of the liable amount. Most LAs would be reluctant to award it in this siutation, expecially for the back period, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't tryfor it. However, I really think your most compelling line is that of the state of mind of yuor client and whether they acted reasoanbly given their personal circumstances.

Cheers

Daren

Have a look at CH/2324/2003 regarding Local Authorities imposing the maximum non-dep deduction without evidence that the non-dep is working over 16 hours per week.

Here's a link to CH/2324/2003 which is available in the 'commissioners decisions on rightsnet' area of toolkit -

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/CH_2324_2003.doc

Only just got back on line so thanks for all your responses. Have written to clients Psychiatrist and am hoping for a helpful report we can use, so will then talk to client about appealing.

Cheers, Sarah

Hi all,

Just putting together appeal letter for my client as discussed earlier on this thread and I could do with some advice.

Thanks for putting me on to CH/2324/2003 which looks v.relevant to my case. I don't read decisions on a regular basis ( tho' probably should) so just want to check I have the right end of the stick. I understand that Commissioner Henty is saying that the L.A. cannot apply the max NDD without any evidence that ND actually working at the required level. In a case where no info. at all has been supplied then they do not have evidence of this and application of NDD is actually an error of law.

If my understanding is correct, then does this mean I should ask that a lower NDD is imposed or should I just ignore this issue entirely to begin with and try and have any NDD removed? I could potentially use the above if the initial decision is not revised and instead argue for a reduction. Not sure of best tactics really. If L.A. will not revise decision I would like to ask for a discretionary payment to cover the amount involved but don't want to put this all in the same letter as it seems to be giving the L.A. too many options and maybe suggesting I don't think my initial argument is strong enough.

Does anyone have any thoughts - all input gratefully received.

Cheers, Sarah

I think you could be slightly over estimating the protection CH/2324/2003 gives to claimants. In this decision the Commissioner went to some lengths to explain that the claimant did not cause the non-dependent deduction as it was already being applied when the claimant did not report a change in circumstances and did not reply to a request for information. (The claimant had already provided information to the Council about the “non-dependent” which had been ignored).

Others might not agree but I think the decision still leaves it open for the LA to argue there has been no official error where information was correctly requested but not supplied. Saying that I still think it is worth you appealing if you are within the 13 months limit as your client’s health issues would support a late appeal.

You should be asking that any non-dependent deduction be based upon the non-dependent having nil income.