An overpayment decision was made before the ammendments for underlying entitlement in October 2000 and underlying entitlement was not considered. The decision was reconsidered and altered after the commencement of the ammendment because a claim was backdated to cover some of the period. Underlying entitlement was not considered at all. Should the second decision have been made in accordance with the ammended or pre-ammended regs?
I know I could try using Adan vs Hounslow if it had to be pre-ammended but don't want to unless I have to.

I would argue that a decision must include any determination embodied in it or necessary to it and so if the superseding decision was made after Reg 104 was amended, the amended Reg 104 would apply.

I dont think the anti- test case rule in Sch7 para 18 of the CPSSA 2000 necesarily precludes anyone from using Adan in relation to amounts to be offset under Regulation 104 because the anti- test case rule thoughout refers to entitlement to HB. This must mean actual entitlement.

Regulation 104 is by nature retrospecetive and is concerned with amounts that would be properly payable if the true circumstances at the time of the overpayments were known. Before the abolition of benefit periods, there could be no ongoing entitlement to HB without a fresh claim if the previous claim had been ended after the termination if IS. Any amount offset under Regulation 104 is not entitlement in such a case.

The common shorthand "underlying entitlement" confuses the issue in relation to the anti test case rule.