Hi All,

I was wondering if someone could offer some suggestions with how to progress a problem.

History of client's HB claims:

October 2003 - claim submitted (didn't get receipt); HB lost the claim

January 2004 - client had received letters reagrding rent arrears and took these to HB (along with proof of IS and Child Ben) to see what was happening with her claim. Client got a receipt confirming she had provided all this information. HB lost all the information given in January 2004.

February 2004 - Client submits another claim for HB, along with all required proofs of income. Client got receipt confirming all this information received. HB lost all this information.

Client has recently approached our service for advice and we requested a backdate to October 2003. HB have said they will only agree to backdate to February 2004.

I'm due to represent my client in Court later this month on a possession hearing on the grounds of rent arrears.

If it was your client, what would you do next?

Thanks in advance,

Ashraf.

Ashraf,
I would appeal the decision to backdate only to Feb 04 and assemble enough evidence to show the Tribunal that on "balance of probability" a claim to HB was indeed made at the Oct 03 date; and I would then seek an adjournment of the possession hearing pending the outcome of the HB appeal.

As you have evidence to show a very poor track record in this HB office losing claims it should not be difficult for the Tribunal to find for the claimant; especially as the focus is sharpened by the possession proceedings.

The LA onbudsman for maladmin is of course the last option and only after you have exhausted the legal process.

Peter

I think you could argue a case at the Tribunal that there is evidence to suggest that the Council are slapdash with their procedures and so loose documents, given that your client has a receipt for the documents but they are lost.

The circumstances of her submitting the documents suggest that she has alrway made a claim, and so the Tribunal should accpet the claimants evidence without further corroboration.

CSIS 48/1992 deals with claims that have been posted and there is no presumption in this case that puts the burden of proof onto the Council, but you migh find some mileage in it.

You will find lost of mileage in R(I)2/51 and R(SB)33/85 which deal with the acceptance of uncorroborated evidence.

I dont tnink it is necessary to prove continuous good cause to bakdate in this case, but you might wish to inlude such an argument in your submission as an alternative

Assuming you can offer a reasonably strong case that the original claims were indeed actually made, there is no issue of backdating and the inherent good cause. My position would be much simpler: I'd be requiring the LA to make a decision on those claim(s) on the grounds they (the claims) were actually made. If the LA refuse, I'd def follow the formal complaints procedure and, ultimately, the LG ombudsman.

Regards
Kevin D

I'd agree with the last post. There's no need for backdating since a claim was actually made. You should formally ask that this claim be processed.

If the Council refuse to process the claim then I would submit an appeal against that decision. Although at present the regulations state that there is no right of appeal against a refusal to process an HB claim there is an argument that this breaches the HRA - the same argument has been accepted for DWP decisions so it's only a matter of time before an HB decision goes the same way. We've got a case pending on the very same argument. It will be up to TAS to decide whether or not this is a matter which attracts a right of appeal - if refused then we intend to take it to the commissioners.

I'd also submit a complaint about the maladministration of your client's HB claims. If the claim/appeal route fails there is a strong argument for an ex gratia payment to compensate your client for lost HB.

Brian:

Way off the original issue, but this may be of interest.

Appeal rights in HB/CTB "non-decision" cases is already the subject of several Commissioner cases. One was heard last month and the decision is awaited with a great deal of interest. Any equivalent appeals made prior to the publication of the CD should be being stayed by TAS pending the outcome. There have been several threads on this issue on hbinfo which may (?) be of interest in the meantime.

If you start with this thread, there are links to others....

http://www.hbinfo.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2192&highlight=

Regards
Kevin D

If it ever reaches a SSAT you may find it useful to support your argument regarding the poor quality of local authority HB procedures by having a look at the BFI reports on the council. Available on the DWP website.

Well - how could I not reply, in the hope that I might go some way towards clearing the name of the LA.

Ashraf - letter in the post to you today looks like the receipts provided were actually issued in 2002 ! We keep copies ! And not surprisingly we actually have the documents refered to in those receipts.

We have accepted all of the findings in the BFI reports (inspected 1998 and 2000) and many improvements have been made.

It has always been our policy to accept that a claim was made, where no such claim is found but asserted as made. We cannot however do that with impunity, we must be satisfied with the credibility of the assertion and with any evidence provided in support of it.

Julian,

I have copies of the recipts both show clearly they were stamped in 2004.

Ashraf