Have a tribunal this month re CTB overpayment. Cl's ex-partner moved back in to her house to help care for her. Cl has mental health problems so ex-ptnr and their children helped with benefit claim forms and ex was appointee for her benefits. For several years cl claimed IS and CTB for her and ex (and actually names him as her partner in the renewal claim forms, although it is highly questionable that she filled them in - she just appears to have signed them). She is classed as the claimant throughout.

It is later discovered that ex has 2 other properties, which he has not declared on the forms or to our client.

IS and CTB are stopped and there are overpayments (each house in excess of £16K market value). There is an on-going IS appeal also, for which I think we can argue that as cl did not know about the capital, she could not have disclosed a material fact.

Rules appear different for CTB though. There must be an official error, for which on above facts I cannot see one.

Solicitor who initially took case on has appealed on ground that cl was not the partner of her ex - he was invited back to home as a carer. I see some merit in arguing a case on non-cohabitation, but is it too late? Decisions have already been made on the claims, classing cl and ex as partners. Can such an issue be considered now?

Any help gratefully received!!

Must be worth a go. Have a look at R(SB)35/85 - two people of opposite sex sharing a household for reasons other than LTHW. You can argue that the claimant herself made a mistake as to a material fact (thought she had to call the man 'partner' because of their previous relationship).

If the boot had been on the other foot (said they weren't LTHW when they were), DWP would have no problem revising their decision. So it's reasonable to expect them to do it this way round if the evidence (and case-law) suggests it.

Jim