I am sorry if this is appears to be an easy one to answer - HB is not my specialist subject, but this comes up a lot.

Claimant claims HB, and is asked for more info to support claim. Misses deadline for this, and claim closed. Then at a later date claims again and seeks backdate to date of original claim.

I assume that backdate will not succeed as there was an earlier claim - better approach is therefore to seek revision or appeal of the previous decision to close the claim. I assume this is correct? But if so, what then is the test for not responding in time to the requst for more info?

And is an appeal the correct form of challenge?

tia

Kevin

The Council should look at the backdated request both as a "claim for backdating" and also as a request for a revision of the decision that the earlier claim was defective.

I know this as we did not do this on one case and were found against by a Commissioner.

Jeff

I agree with Jeff's comments.

However, if the claimant is 60+ years old, backdating may not be an issue as currently, providing they can confirm their income, capital and circumstances for the previous 12 months, HB and CTB should be backdated 12 months automatically.

Come October, this will change and it will be a maximum of three months automatic backdate.

Regards

John

Call me old fashioned, but an LA can't 'close' the claim because of a lack of reply... So this question is not as basic as it might seem!

Unless the regs have changed to undo the effect of the Tribunal of Commissioners decision that reg 76 (2) - as was - was of no effect.

A claim must be decided, in which case it should have been 'nil ent'... Is that what happened, because if it was then there are different ways to give effect to changes in the period of claim (or a new claim would be required but backdating would be the way to go, and there is no reason why 'good cause' would not apply'.

Can you please provide more info about what happened to the original claim. Was it ever determined (cos if not, it remains a valid claim, no matter how long ago it was made).

These things rarely are that basic.

I am not sure yet what happened to the original claim and will get the HB file.

The original claim was from June 07. I was told that the claim ceased because the applicant failed to provide info in response to a letter sent in Oct 07. She admits that she did not reply to this (she states she did not get it) but also that she had already provided proof by then (and we have proof that this had been provided).

However, things then get more complicated - she did follow-up the claim in Feb 08, but received a letter in May stating her 'application' from Feb has been refused as she is no longer eligible for rent. (This is because she has been evicted by then (we are now trying to secure her re-instatement)). However, the only application she made was her original claim from last year.

So I am not clear if the May decision was in relation to the original claim or not - the file may assist with this. If it is then we may just need to appeal this. If not then we may have to seek a backdate or revision/appeal in relation to the letter from October as well.

'liable' for rent. i think it is time to go home.

Get hold of the decision letters, following the Tribunal of Commissioners decision R(H)3/05 they must be in a format that makes it clear that the decision has been taken that there is no entitlement to HB for the period in question. They must also contain a statement as to rights of appeal and to a stament of reasons.

If they are not in the required format, the time limits for appeal have not started. If they are in the required format, you can still sumbmit a late appeal, given that the decision was not made until Oct 2007 at the earliest.

You may well find that no proper decision has been taken, in which case all that is needed is to provide the information needed for a decision to be made and demand that a proper decison with appeal rights is issued.

If no such decison is issued within 14 days of your demand, send a JR pre action protocol letter to the Council's legal department