Hi all,

My mind may be still on holiday shutdown so please forgive if this is an obvious one!

Claimaint was in reciept of full HB/CTB as getting Income Support. Income Support stopped, client failed PCA. Claimant appealing Personal Capability Assessment and gets reduced rate Income Support pending appeal.

No break effectively in Income Support award. Therefore full underlying enitlement toHB. LA do have proof of continuous Income Support award.

They have reinstated claim but with a break for 6 weeks which is not very well explained. I suspect a new claim was made and claimant did not request backdating. I am struggling to get full clear details either from claimant or local authority.

Overpayment decision issued in December. Client allegedly did not provide proof of income within 28 day deadline to allow them to assess underlying entitlement, nor did she appeal. So HB do accept that she had full underlying entitlement and now have proofs but state that she needs to explain why she did not respond in time? What is the deadline to provide the information? Is there any? I remember having similar case when proof provided some time later, HB did not dispute this.

The fact of the matter is i dont think she make any response to the overpayment decision as the new claim was processed and she didnt realise there was any break in claim.

Claimant had CTAX bailiffs and court summons from Housing already.

Any suggestions will be appreciated.

There are many issues to this situation. The LA have no interest in the PCA / IB aspect so long as the clmt is on IS. So, the following concentrates on HB/CTB.

Lots of points spring to mind before directly answering your question.

1a) When the LA requested info, you mention the time limit given by the LA was "28 days". If so, the LA are wrong - the time limit has changed to 1 calendar month (& this was in place at December 05).

1b) Did the LAs info request make it clear what info was required?

2) Was IS SUSPENDED, or TERMINATED? If suspended, argue that there were no grounds for the LA to suspend & terminate the HB/CTB claim (as there was no relevant change of circumstances on which a supersession could be made). A change, or suspension, of IS is not a relevant change for HB/CTB. Only a termination is.

3) Did the LA properly suspend the HB/CTB claim? Was it done in accordance with DARs 11 &/or 13?

4) Did the LA terminate the claim correctly - i.e. allowing the full calendar month? . Was the clmt correctly notified of this?


If any of the above procedures / notifications were incorrect, I'd start off by arguing that the LA has failed to make a proper decision and/or has failed to satisfy Sch 9 AND that this has prejudiced the position of your client.


Next - underlying entitlement. HBR 104 does not have its own time limit. However, I have argued (& continue to do so), that this is because it doesn't need its own limit. The time limits are created by the regs for requesting info and, subsequently, appealing. In short, if a clmt does not provide info / evidence, the LA is within its rights to make a decision based on the info it has at that time. Once that decision is notified, the clmt has the right to ask for a reconsideration OR make a formal appeal (or both). If the clmt fails to do that, the decision made by the LA stands. And late appeal is then subject to the usual rules for dealing with late appeals. The LA can also consider an "anytime" revision under DAR 4(2), but this route is at the discretion of the LA and is non-appealable. A late appeal MUST be sent to TAS by the LA for TAS to decide if it can go ahead or not.

Based on the info given by you (and momentarily ignoring possible admin errors by the LA), it seems that the LA is giving your client an opportunity to provide an explanation so that a reconsideration can be considered.

So, what to do? In my view, I'd take the following approach:

1) provide the info requested by the LA (no reason not to).

2) if there have been errors in admin / notifs, gently point those out, suggesting that this may mean no decision has been made and / or your client hasn't been notified in accordance with Sch 9.

3) ask the LA to consider an "anytime" revision (er, nicely).

4) that the letter should be treated as a formal appeal (if the LA won't reconsider).


The LA may try and argue that a termination under DAR 14 is non-appealable. If so, post again on the board.

Hope the above at least points in the right direction.

I dont think Regulation 104 applies at all. The chain of events is thus: IS stopped because of failed PCA. IS reinstated at reduced rate. ie decision to end IS is revised.

From an HB point of view there are no grounds to terminate the HB claim.

There are no grounds for suspension for failure to provide information as the LA ca obtain it itself by exercising its rights under what is now Regulation 112 of the consolidated 2006 HB Regulations.

Alternatively the reinstatement of IS can be viewed as a new award of a relevant benefit (given that the previous award was terminated), and so the supeseding HB decision will take effect from the date IS was subesequently re-awarded (D&A regulation 7(2)(i) and 8(14))

Hi just to say thanks. HB/CTB awarded in full, bailiffs called off and costs refunded. Seems that LA acknowledge they had no grounds to terminate claim, although ive not really had any explantion. I was told yesterday to request a backdate, but rent account credited today so presumably it had already been processed yesterday!
nice way to end the week though!