My first HB appeal, client has been refused backdating as did not return her postal intervention form to renew her claim. Due to her mental health problems and post not arriving, she only realised that no HB had been paid when rent officer told her. Her social worker appealed citing mental health grounds and postal delays but backdating was refused. Any advcie anyone?

have you obtained an explanation for the decision refusing to backdate?

jan

A postal intervention is not a renewal claim. The burden is on the council to show:
1) Information was reasonably required
2) As a result of non receipt of that information, a questions had arisen as to whether or not the original decision should be superseded or whether the conditions for ongoing entitlment were met

I would argue that the Council should consider every avenue for obtaining information before benefit is suspended eg where a passporting benefit is in payment the LA could simply do a RAT check.

LA's seem to be doing postal interventions not as a means of making sure that entitlement to benefit is legitimately continuing, but as a ritual to meet some spurious performance indicator.

You should force the LA to specify what question had arisen as to your clients entitlement to benefit and what answer was needed. If they cannot do that, then there were no grounds for termination in the first place and benefit should be restored. It is then not a matter of proving good cause for backdating, but one of putting the burden back onto the Council to prove its case.

Have to agree with Stainsby, you do not sign on for Hb/Ctb, we no longer require repeat applications, we can only ask for information reasonably required, often claimants have passported entitlement so income/capital details are not required.

Unless your claimant had vacated (obviously not) why suspend/terminate?

Did you/your client appeal against termination?

I have a recently referred client who lost about 8 weeks benefit due to an intervention form not being returned within the LA's timescale last sep/oct (2005).

I understand, and agree, with your comments re ",,, force the LA to specify,,,". It would be useful to have some references/interpretation of legislation etc to support such an approach. Have there being any relevant developments since last year? are there any commissioners’ decision?

The only reference I have been able to find is from
"Backdating Notes 2006 for Assessment Officers - 12/06/2006" which states:

DWP have advised that where a claim has been suspended and
subsequently terminated because the claimant has failed to provide
information, if he provides the information at a later date the LA
can then decided whether to use it to reopen the claim. This is not
considered backdating, although the LA will have to decide whether
they accept the delay in supplying the information.

Unless I have missed something or not been told something (surely not!) then the appeal reasons could be along the lines of;

(i) it was incorrect, asking for information not required and terminating entitlement when not supplied, as well as,

(ii) it was unlawful, there are no legal grounds to "review" entitlement to Hb/Ctb.

We (La's) decide entitlement and unless a change is notified to the La we cannot "end" entitlement without superceding/revising etc.


The La would struggle to point to a specific something that indicates or inferred a period of no entitlement or a reason to end it (unless there is something not in the previous posts like returned mail?).

This may point the La to a "new" way of thinking.