Hi,

I have a case under appeal re :O/P of IS - Client was in receipt of IS as a lone parent but failed to disclose that her partner was living with her . This created O/P on the IS claim .
Surprisingly , at that time the partner had also an IB JSA single claim in existence.
In the appeal I argued that under the provision of Reg 13 (POAR) Regs 1988 - an offset should apply for the additional amount of JSA which should have been made - the DWP have refused this because of the last paragraph of the Reg which states ' but no other deduction shall be made in respect of any other entitlement to benefit which may be or might have been determined to exist .'
Are they correct that this provision does not apply in the circumstances of my case?
Can an offset apply for any additional amount of JSA which was not payable under the original but which should have been determined to be payable had the non - disclosure been remedied before determination ?

I find the wording of this regulation to be confusing and diffcult to understand the correct interpretation.
After reading through some commissioners decision - CIS /546/2008 (facts of this case is slightly different to my case ) and CIS/2291/2001 (the facts of this case was that there was no JSA claim in existence )
On reading these decisions -my understanding is that if there was no claim in existence then the offset of any notional enitlement cannot apply.

The other question is - Does the offset of a benefit has to be the same as the overpayment ? I hope some one can enlighten me on this .


In the above decisions references have been made to the following decisions - CP 5257/1999, CIS/718/93, CIS /577/94 and CIS/1771/2000 , which I have been unable to find - If anyone has any of these decisions , please can you let me have a copy or let me know if any of them can assist my case

I've been going through the annotation to the reg in Volume III of the Social Security Legislation (page 763).

It contains some of those decisions you've mentioned and some others too (CIS/1777/2000, CDLA/3768/2002).

The general consensus would seem to be that you cannot offset a different benefit to the one overpaid.

However, if the appeal is lost, your client can ask the SoS to exercise disrection on recovery with 'true loss to the public purse' argument. Depending on the facts of the case, I might also in support that in failing to offset another benefit, the government has effectively profited from your client's ignorance of a very complicated and demanding set of responsibilities and rules.

GL

I was the rep in CIS /546/2008 and if you think it will help can send you my submission to the Commissioners.

However, the facts are different and this may affect the arithmetic because only the ADDITIONAL amount that would have been paid had they disclosed a living-together situation is deductible from the o/p. In our cl's case the partner was sick, but neither working nor claiming benefit so the additional amount was the difference between IS for a lone parent and IS for a couple, and this was deducted from the o/p. In your case there doesn't appear to be an additional amount.

Thank you both for your feedback . I had a feeling that the cl's appeal would not succeed .