Have a fairly straightforward Housing Benefit appeal regading temporary absence. Client has very serious illnesses and has been in hospital and convalescing with mother - resulting in several temporary abscences between 6 - 8 weeks at a time. She clearly lived at home several days between each absence. Unfortunately a VF visit was made, HB suspended and claim terminated all within one month. She is out of time now for a straightforward "any grounds revision" appeal to apply Reg 7(13).

The LA are asking for a new claim with backdating (possibly preferable for subsidy reasons??).

My question is - Which is better?:

1) A late appeal for an "any grounds" revision (of termination decision).
2) An appeal for "any time" revision.
3) Follow the LA's preference for backdating.

Quick thoughts on the way out of the door ......

How did the LA manage to suspend and terminate all with the space of one month? On what grounds did they terminate the claim...did they write at the time of suspension asking for information? how much time did they allow the claimant to reply to any letters?

At first glance it appears the LA hasn't followed correct procedures...

Good questions

grounds for terminating the claim - failing to respond to VF visit (I'm sure if put on the spot - they will say a doubt arose as to residency).

Suspension decision was retrospective 2 weeks. They allowed 1 month and with no further response they terminated.

Yes they did write asking for info. The claimant (wheelchair bound for 90 % of day) apparently missed it when she went home for a few days about four/five weeks later. So it is true she did not respond within time limit (due to absence and medical condition).

Not sure if this amounts to official error or not and I'm wary of making late appeals unless I'm sure which DMA section applies.

As far as I can see suspension/termination decision was made in ignorance of facts. I'm just not sure what is the best approach to rectify.

Retrospective suspension? How does that work then? Surely you suspend when you suspend - you can't pretend you did it two weeks ago.

A revision under reg 4(2)(a) of the HB decisons and appeals regs on the grounds of official error.

Official error can be an error in law and your case would appear to be on all fours with the decision of Commissioner Howell in CH/1786/05 (on the OSSC website).

The authorities initial decision is wrong in law and should be revised in my opinion

David

PS sorry about the ref being to the old regs

I always do a late appeal under Reg 19(5)(a) on the ground that the substantive appeal has a reaonable chance of success and include the grounds for the substantive appeal in the appeal letter, provided you are still within 13 months of the decision to terminate.

You might be able to argue that your appeal is on time (even more than 13 months after the decision )if you can point to any defects in the termination notification that render it non compliant with what is now Sch9 of the 2006 Regs. I have got a number of cases to Tribunal this way

Thanks for the advice - think I'll go for the late appeal.

Oh - and thanks for pointing out that the practice of retrospective suspension is logically silly

....... Bit embarrased that I hadn't noticed that