sorry, i don't know whether there is any requirement on the DWP to notify the Inland Revenue on receipt of BD8. it would be an administrative rather than a legal requirement, and one may hope, but best not to hold breath. i too would like to know if there are any instructions to DWP staff on this. it might otherwise need amendment to the registration of death arrangements, to give 2 certicates.???
a good few years ago, the old Benefits Agency went down the road of having local offices appoint specially trained 'bereavement officers' to help recently bereaved claimants make all the appropriate claims and notifications in one go, as a 'customer care' initiative, recognizing the special difficulties people face at such a time.
i think much of that has long since fallen by the cost-cutting wayside, along with the 'customer service' priority it once ( and debatably) claimed. it remains to be seen what remnants survive jobcentre plus and tele-claiming.
but your case really highlights the issues around the joint claim legislation. i've complained about it previously on rightsnet. it seems to be impossibly rigid, and, although there's a confused area around claims, entitlement and awards, seems to be framed in a way that creates technical, but non-real overpayments, without adequate safeguard clauses or provisions. (the loss to public funds is _created_ rather than actual, by non-compliance with regulatory claim requirements, not caused by the claimant's circumstances in relation to tax credit entitlement ie children and income). any useful clarification over the interpretaion of section 3 which the Commissioners could surely give, is likely to be a long time coming, in view of the absence of overpayment appeal rights. the term 'joint claim' itself appears to be meaningless in reality, if the award cannot survive the death of one of the claimants. 'joint claim' is merely a definition in relation to the relevant statute. it's not like a child benefit claim or an old family credit claim, where the 'alternative payee' could continue to cash the order book - there being no change in entitlement.
your client has not received a penny more than parliament intended her to receive. she stands to receive LESS than her intended entitlement, AND faces a debt to HM treasury at a most difficult time. leaving aside the tenuous BD8 question, that bill could easily run into several thousands of pounds in some cases. (supposing her husband died in April, and it did not come to the attention of the IR until the renewal claim.)
If Parliament really intended that the treasury should profit from the death of tax credit recipients and their widowed partner's ignorance of section 3 of the Tax Credit Act (or their post bereavement shock/grief), it is difficult to imagine a more morally repugnant and unjust tax. I for one do not believe that the Chancellor intended this at all.
which leaves many questions...
jan
|