This is more of a rant than anything, but please bear with me. Disabled client (recieving DLA, IB & IS top-up) recieves letter from Bradford Debt Recovery stating he has been overpaid through failing to disclose earnings from the date of his IS claim (Feb 2002) through to Jan 2003 when he recieved a home visit. Client, who had been working 12 hours per week under the old therapeutic rules for some time prior to his IS claim, appealed. Schedule of evidence recieved. Schedule states: 'Mr X claimed Income Support but the original claim is unavailable'. As luck would have it, we had assisted him with the claim and had kept a copy on his old file. Earnings clearly declared on claim form (and 2 wage slips sent with claim). Submission prepared, copy of everything sent to Bradford with covering letter asking for decision to be revised prior to appeal. Appeal hearing now going ahead. We contact Bradford and are told that DM saw no reason to revise the decision. What a complete waste of everyone's time. And, what's more, you can bet your bottom dollar that the DWP won't bother sending a PO (and wouldn't I just love to hear their argument if they did). Another prime example of the complete failure of the decision-making process.

I agree. Such a waste of public money and so stressful for the client. I've had similar appeals (was going to start ranting on but stepped back from teh brink!) and it's infuriating.
How about informing the local MP? It just might start a fire inder someone!

Yes- I might just do that. Ooh, it does get up my nose sometimes. Oh dear, you've started me off again. Think I need a strong cup of tea...

official decision-making of this standard does not bode well...

the DM has revised an award on the grounds of misrep or failure to disclose, without any evidence that either one occured. the result is a demand for several thousand pounds, i would guess.

it implies a disturbing arrogance and lack of sense of duty . legal safeguards? ...pffff...leave it aht, guv!

as for the refusal to change the decision when confronted with the evidence, it could very well be a case of digiti erecti, if ever there was one!

now that we have a secretary of state again, is there any reason why he couldn't be prosecuted under section 111A of the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997? : )

It is an offence under sub-section (1) if a person:
"dishonestly -

(a) makes a false statement or representation:
(b) produces or furnishes, or causes or allows to be produced or furnished, any document or information which is false in a material particular:
(c)......
(d)......

with a view to obtaining any benefit or other payment or advantage under the social security legislation (whether for himself or some other person)."

yeah but no...

jj

that's given me food for thought jj. Might be on a hiding to nothing but I'm going to use it in my dealings with Manchester Debt Man as I have a horrendous case at the moment and it might just come in handy if I start the allegation with 'This could well be construed as'(an offence under section 111A......)

lol! wear a hard hat, sue!

As it's Friday I'm a bit giddy so I'll get in there feet first before I change my mind.

Update on original rant. Recieved telephone call from very kind lady from Bradford Debt Recovery Customer Services section who had seen my posting. Following her invaluable assistance decision now revised in my client's favour. Thanks- it really was appreciated!