Forum Home → Discussion → Income support, JSA and tax credits → Thread
Income Support rapid reclaim
I have a claimant who had made a claim for IS, and had capital of about £12,500. This resulted in her not qualifying for IS due to income/tariff income. Another claim was later made under the rapid reclaim procedure and she answered that her capital had not changed, when, in fact, it had reduced.
An appeal against the this second decision has been refused on the grounds that she had declared her capital still to be the £12,500. Evidence of the new lower capital sum had been provided. I am now looking to take the case to tribunal.
Any suggestions about this as I am not too familiar with rapid reclaim procedures? Thanks
Based on the info given, the crux is simply the amount of capital.
I can’t see any reason, in law, why the clmt’s actual capital cannot be taken into account - the DWP can revise its decision perfectly legally. The only possible legal reason for retaining the previous amount of capital in the assessement of IS would be if the DWP regards the reduction to have been with a “significant operative purpose” to obtain, or increase, benefit (i.e. deprivation of capital).
In the circumstances explained, I wouldn’t hesitate to take this to Tribunal.
The papers I have state that she had the capital in Jan 09. She reclaimed stating no change in capital. “She has not argued that she no longer has any element and has not stated that any element was used for a specific purpose”. The appeal sent clearly stated the capital figure had changed and evidence was supplied. They have reconsidered but “cannot see any reason to change the original decision”. She has not been asked about anything to do with deprevation and the deprevation Regs have not been mentioned anywhere in the papers.
I would have thought that rather than proceed to tribunal, the DWP would have asked for more information.
I have also advised her to submit yet another IS claim and ensure the current capital amounts are fully declared.
I agree with jj that such a case is a monumental waste of Tribunal time. However, based on the latest info given, I can’t see any way forward other than to formally appeal.
Here’s a novel topical. Perhaps if the DWP didn’t make such poor quality decisions coupled with such dismissive intransigence, the costs of administering benefits would be substantially less and the pressure to cut the amount of benefits being administered would be lessened. Hmmm….
Thanks for the comments. I had the same thoughts but just wanted to check I hadn’t missed something. I will try a brief response to them to try to avoid a tribunal, and hopefully save everyone some time.