Our LA have accepted our forms of authority for years. Now they are saying we cannot request Revisions or superseessions without clients actual signature of claimant on the actual letter previously FOA sufficient. Yet our FOA of authority is still good enough for the Commissioner. Anyone having similar problem, and know if law supports what the LA contend.

P.S please excuse the spelling.

Appeals and applications for an extension of time limits must be signed by the person affected. An FOA is not considered sufficient.

Reg 20(1)(b) – R V Lambeth ex p Crookes.

However, I am not aware of any similar requirement in respect of applications for revision or supercession.

I agree with jmembery, but with one additional thought.

HBR 88(1) requires that it is the CLMT (or person receiving payment) who must notify the LA of a CofC - not a third party (unless the third party falls within HBR 82 - i.e. is an appointee, agreed by the LA, or has Power of Attorney etc). Such notification, strictly speaking, must be in writing.

The LA may be requesting a clmt's signature to avoid a scenario where there is subsequently a dispute and the clmt denies that the info given to the LA came from him/her. Perhaps the LA has had its fingers burnt in precisely this way - hence their change of approach. At a (very) large pinch, it *may* just be arguable that the wording of HBR 83 could enable LAs to require a signature. But, as jmembery has already pointed out, there is not a specific provision.

It's worth noting that there is also no specific requirement for a claim form to be signed - acknowledged in a CD. But, such a claim could still be rejected on the basis that it was not completed in accordance with the instructions on the form.

Regards

I actually don’t agree with Kevin on this one (which worries me a bit).

Reg 88 only imposes a duty to notify a change of circumstances. It does not, as I see it, in any way limit who can report changes of circumstances. It would not stop, for example, a landlord from sending a notification of a rent increase direct to an LA.

Hi Jeff

HBR 88(1).....

Subject to paragraphs (3) and (5), if at any time between the making of a claim and a decision being made on it, or during the award of housing benefit, there is a change of circumstances which the claimant, or any person by whom or on whose behalf sums payable by way of housing benefit are receivable, might reasonably be expected to know might affect the claimant´s right to, the amount of or the receipt of housing benefit, that person shall be under a duty to notify that change of circumstances by giving notice in writing to the designated office.

However, I agree that it doesn't prevent someone else from ALSO notifying the LA, but it still requires "that person" (i.e. clmt, or payee) to do so.

NB: I'm aware this is being pedantic, hence my "strictly speaking" qualification earlier.

Regards

THANKS EVERYONE
I feel the legislation clearly does not support the LAs arguement as clearly the Landlord and LA can have an agent and to prevent the claimant a agent raises issues of equality of arms and really would be a breach of the HRA.

IN THIS

HBR 88(1).....

Subject to paragraphs (3) and (5), if at any time between the making of a claim and a decision being made on it, or during the award of housing benefit, there is a change of circumstances which the claimant, or any person by whom or on whose behalf sums payable by way of housing benefit are receivable, might reasonably be expected to know might affect the claimant´s right to, the amount of or the receipt of housing benefit, that person shall be under a duty to notify that change of circumstances by giving notice in writing to the designated office

the "that person" refers back to "the claimant, or any person by whom or on whose behalf sums payable by way of housing benefit are receivable, ight reasonably be expected to know ..."

I should have thought a welfare benefits adviser would not be 'that person' since the adviser is not the claimant or any person by whom or on whose behalf sums payable are receivable.

that's my view anyway, based on the reg as quoted.

NorthWilts:

Sorry, but I disagree with you for most of the reasons set out in Claire's analysis.

The only person(s) that have the rights of the clmt are those who fall under HBR 82 (e.g. appointees - meaning those specifically fall within HBR 82; or those with Power of Attorney). An "agent" is not enough, nor is a general authorisation.

Regards