Hi all,

I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction with something?

My client is in L/A temp accommodation and been found intentionally homeless but I am conident we can persuade the Council to let her stay pending the review which should go in our favour.

Anyhow enough waffling and on to the question. As a part of the homeless process my client was assisted witha HB claim by the Homeless Officer. It appears that the claim did not get sent in until she had been in the temp accommodation for 3 weeks.

When the claim was made of course she was left with an amount that had not been paid. She wrote to HB to ask for a backdate and was told under Reg 83(12) she did not have good cause because according to DWP guidelines good cause is not

Failure to make enquiries
Carelessness, thoughtlessness or indifference.

Can you point me in the right direction in relation to any decisions relating to receiving help from a Council department whos lack of turn around appears to have been the cause of the delay.

And if any of you HB type need and housing law advice I will repay you 10 fold.

Regards and cheers

Brian.

I'm presuming that the claim form was done in good time and the homelessness officer said s/he would drop it in but delayed doing so?

If so, I think my response would turn there reasons back against them in respect of the inactions of the homelessness officer.

But if the homelessness officer helped with the claim, albiet three weeks late, and then dropped in the form straight away, the client would have to show proper good cause for not claiming sooner.

If the claimant asked about paying the rent and the homelessness officer, or another official of the council, didn't give the proper advice that might amount to good cause. But if the claimant didn't make enquiries at the outset, then there would need to a reason for not making enquiries such as health, disability, life crisis, etc, etc.

Hope this helps...

Failure to make enquiries cannot of itself not found a case for good cause (R(S) 2/63, distinguished). True the circumstances would have to be highly unusual but it is not impossible to construct a case.

Couple of questions:

1) Is your client on Income Support or Income Based Job Seekers Allowance?

2) Did your client 'notify' the Benefit Office (by whatever means) that he/she intended to claim prior to actually submitting the application. For example, did they pick a claim form up from the benefit office?

Mon 28-Apr-08 02:04 PM by pipkin

What about discretionary housing payments to cover the period if no good cause..?

I thought I had typed answer to this but is seems to have vanished.

The DWP guidance manual used to have a section on being misled by official source.

In these circumstances, the customer could reasonably assume that the Homeless Officer was acting on behalf of the council and it is therefore unreasonable for them to ring up the Benefits Office and ask "have you got my form OK"

Cheers for the replys most helpful.

Ta.

Regards

Brian.

Here is the extract from the GM re being misled by official information

Misled by official information
2A.16 Good cause for the delay in claiming can be accepted from the day advice was given if a claimant
1 enquires at an LO
2 acts on the information or advice given, and
3 that advice was incorrect or misleading

2A.17 If the claimant tried to carry out official advice but acted wrongly through misunderstanding,good cause can be accepted unless the claimant acted unreasonably.
Consider if the delay in claiming was due to a mistaken belief reasonably held. R(G) 1/75; R(P) 7/79; R(S) 8/81; R(SB) 6/85

2A.18 A claimant could only reasonably expect advice about benefits which the LO deals with. Good cause may be accepted when
1 a claimant is
1.1 not given advice or
1.2 is given misleading advice and
2 it would be reasonable to expect advice to have been given and
3 the advice or lack of it contributed to the delay in claiming

CP 30/50; R(U) 3/60


Here is an extract from my standard submission for backdating appeals

The classic test of whether good cause to backdate a claim was made by the Commissioner in CS/371/1949 and was endorsed by a Tribunal of Commissioners in R(S)2/63. The test is basically whether there exists:

“some fact which, having regard to all the circumstances (including the claimant’s state of health and the information which he had received and that which he might have obtained) would probably have caused a reasonable person of his age and experience to act (or fail to act) as the claimant did.”

The Commissioner emphasized in R(G)2/74 that an a piori approach which sought to pre suppose some fixed principle was not correct. All the circumstances must be taken in the round. In a later decision R(P)1/79 Commissioner Magnus referred back to R(G)2/74 and (at para5) cited part of Brandon LJ’s contribution to the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Wall’s Meat Co LT v Khan <1979>

“there could be good cause for delay if the delay was due to a mistaken belief reasonably held. ,”


I suggest that this is at least some indication that the Council is taking an a priori approach to the issue of good cause; the same approach that was much criticised by the Commissioner in R(G)2/74. The Council has certainly not taken all the circumstances into account as held to be essential by the Tribunal of Commissioners in R(S)2/63, nor has it considered whether or not Mrs X’s delay was on account of a mistaken belief reasonably held,
..............................................................


Hope this gives you emough to mount a challenge to the Council

Stainsby,

Thanks very much is really helpful cheeres.

Regards.

brian.