Can anyone point me to regs. guidance or cds concerning a benefit authority making "adverse inference" when claimant fails to provide details of income (because he says they do not exist).

Backgound details. This refers to underlying entitlement (reg 104) of housing benefit. The claimant effectively did not work during this period and was maintained by ex-partner in return for childminding whilst she worked. He has evidence supporting this (not very good - it has to be said) and there is no evidence presented by DM to the contrary. In the course of protracted letter interchange, the claimant mentioned that after this period he worked self employed. He did not claim any benefits in this period.
The DM has become obsessed that he was working self employed during this period - but has no evidence. The DM therefore insisted on Self Employed income records which, on my advice the claimant refused because his self employment was not relevant to the period of the U/E.
My submission to the tribunal was made with supporting cds on the issue of "uncorroborated evidence must be accepted if no contrary evidence or inherently improbable". The tribunal was lost with the chair stating it was reasonable for the DM to draw adverse inference. I already have grounds for leave to commissioners over the "improbable" issue but I am also looking for any information on drawing adverse inference.

R(H) 3/05 - aka CH/2155/2003 (www.osscsc.gov.uk)
CH/1416/2005 (being mailed to Rnet)

Oddly, there is not a specific regulation as such, but R(H) 3/05 makes it clear that a LA (& therefore a Tribunal) is entitled to draw adverse inferences where the info / evidence provided for a claim is considered to be insufficient.

In CH/1416/2005 (para 16), it was also confirmed that it is for the CLMT to show that underlying entitlement is due.

Unless you can show that it was wholly unreasonable for the decision to have been reached, I'm not massively optimistic for your chances. I don't think the "uncorroborated evidence" argument directly helps in this instance if the Tribunal has effectively decided that the evidence as a whole weighs against the clmt.

Although CDs regularly relied on by Stainsby "confirm" that corroboration is not required in English law, a counter argument would be that the HB/CTB regs give specific powers for the provision of evidence. In turn, so long as the LA (or Tribunal) haven't arrived at a "Wednesbury unreasonable" decision, my view is that the corroboration argument won't get too far on this occasion.

Regards

Notwithstanding what Kevin has said, DM's cannot just hurl accusations around without having some evidence in support. Agreed, if a person says s/he has no income then it is legitimate for a DM to enquire on what they have been living on.

It is here that the uncorroborated evidence should be accepted if it is not inherently unlikely or self-contradictory. A person who says that (for example) that they have been living on hand-outs from friends for the previous x weeks, does not (as a matter of law) have to produce signed witness statements in support.

If a DM disbelieves him/her then the onus is then on the DM to back that disbelief up. Of course, if a DM can produce a credible argument that goes to the heart of the claimant's evidence or credibility then that is legitimate. The onus is then on the claimant to rebut that.

However, what the DM cannot do is to point to an alleged source of income without some concrete evidence in support. This is the fundamental principle of English law, that s/he who alleges must prove the truth of that allegation.

Suspect Kevin is looking at this the wrong way. The cds on corroboration not being required are fairly robust- but there is a get out in them that says ..."of course uncorroborated evidence does not have to be accepted if it is inherently improbable"

That is what I have been caught on here. In this case the claimant says he lived on £45 per week and the LA, rather scathingly ((thats the chairmans description - not mine), says this is improbable. I think I have a reasonable ground for appeal because I went to the trouble of submitting statistical evidence that showed no less than 291,300 people were living on £42.70 (under 25 app amount) at the time. The tribunal have ignored this evidence in the written reasons which I think is somewhat inadequate to put it mildly.

For the record no evidence whatever was submitted by the LA which contradicts the claimant's evidence.

The other issue that has arisen concerns reg73. The LA have asked (and the tribunal agreed) that since the claimant failed to give informaion requested that they can take an "adverse inference". This is despite the chairman saying that much of the the information requested "probably did not exist". So I shall be also appealling on the issue of whether the information was "reasonably required"

thanks to kevin .... here's CH/1416/2005

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/CH_1416_2005.doc

In two old and widely accepted CDs it was held that claimants should be believed unless what they say is either "inherently improbable" or "self contradictory": R(SB) 33/85 and R(I) 2/51.

These may be helpful.