This is about the rather boring looking (the boring looking bits are where the nastis are hidden by officaldom as I am sure you all know)pages 34 and 35 of the new DLA forms. At the top of page 35 there is a box to tick if you understand "the information on PArt A about being overpaid."

Part A is on page 34 and seems to be an attempt to get round the need for the DWP to show causation in order for an overpayment to be recoverable under Section 71.

Any thoughts anyone?

as far as i'm aware, this recovery applies where the administrative arrangements for payments, specifically ADT payments can't be stopped in time - eg person notifies change of circs, revised decision made, but too late to stop payment - the subsequent payment would be an excess payment, which the DWP would want to be repaid. the recovery is covered by reg.11 of payments on account etc.

i haven't actually come across anyone having problems with these - it certainly shouldn't be used to get round sec.71

I'm probably just a suspicious old so-and-so. Why bother getting a tick about reg 11?

Are they missing the legal effect of order books being signed?

we're probably all suspicious old so-and-soes... : ) i'm not sure - probably covering their asses... the dweep usually tends to be very good at having this sort of thing sewn up, legislatively speaking...

11 (2) (b) prescribes that notice of the effect of reg. 11 should be made in writing, where the claim is in writing... er... (i don't think they pay crisis loans by ACT, do they????)

missing the legal effect of order books being signed? suspicious old me suspects that fraud prevention hysteria played a big part in the push to get everyone paid into bank accounts - the lure of all that access to intelligence about people's undeclared stashes - whereas the reality may be that as a method of payment, it may offer greater opportunity for fraud, including organised fraud and internal fraud, than the physical act of signing an order at the post office. what chance, when the dust settles from the tax credit fiasco, of OBs being reintroduced as an anti-fraud measure? : )

they sometimes went for misrepresentation on obtaining payments rather than claims - a limited option they seem to have given up by this change - they could be missing it, but i haven't come across any cases lately.

i have so far failed to extract any information about monitoring of problems with post office card accounts, not for want of trying, but i haven't quite given up yet. does anyone know the reasons for the surprise 'non- announcement 'til the cat was out of the bag' of the contract ending?

I read somewhere ages ago that (very roughly rounded up) an order book payment cost £1, a giro cost £2 and a direct bank payment 0.25p.

You would have thought that given those savings:

a. It would not be too much to give up on O/B misrep o/ps, and
b. It would not be too much to issue even quarterly statements of payments made to claimants.

No clients I have have any idea what they are being paid and when and waht periods the payments cover.

It is nice not to have go through 'yellow pages' overpayment appeals, and the move to bank payments is certainly more closely alighning the DWP benefits with tax credits, in that nobody knows what they're being paid, why, when or whether, but it does not make it easy on the ground.