Post by nickd on Jan 7, 2011 1:53:15 GMT 1
Mrs W came to see us shortly after her mother had sadly died unexpectedly last Easter, her mother had suffered a stroke and passed away in hospital after just over a week.
Mrs W was understandably overwhelmed with grief, she came to see us clutching a letter saying her Council Tax Benefit had been suspended because she had not completed and returned a change of circumstances form to the Local Authority, the letters were unpleasant and greatly upsetting to Mrs W, especially when they came so shortly after having to arrange a funeral for her late mother.
Mrs W was completely unable to deal with the correspondence, including the review form because they came to her whilst she was dealing with her mother's admission to hospital and then the affairs associated with her loss.
We sympathetically went through all the paperwork with Mrs W and realised that an overpayment had arisen because Mrs W had continued to receive payments of the child addition in her Income Support for her son, despite child benefits stopping a few years beforehand when he had left school and took up a work based apprenticeship.
We sensitively explained that the overpayment would be considerable and made a disclosure to the Local Council who, to their credit, treated the case most sympathetically. The issue concerning the Council Tax Benefit was resolved with our assistance, this came as a great relief to Mrs W at a time of great distress.
A similar disclosure was made to the DWP but their treatment was far less sympathetic. They wrote a demanding letter asking for the return of almost £10,000. Mrs W was immensely shocked by this and we encouraged her to appeal.
An appeal was made against the overpayment because the DWP were aware of the position regarding Mrs W's son, she had visited the JobCentre on work focussed interviews, since claiming Income Support whilst looking after her elderly grandmother as a carer. The Jobcentre had not realised that a work based apprenticeship meant the son was treated as a non-dependant; they would also have had access to details of the child benefit cessation on their system; whilst apparently 'checking Mrs W was receiving the correct amount of money'.
On the grounds of official error, we challenged the overpayment, we asked for full details of each visit that Mrs W made to the Jobcentre and details of the review forms which were completed in the presence of a DWP officer. We maintained that the overpayment was non-recoverable as our client had no reason to believe she was being overpaid because her claim had been regularly checked off by an officer of the DWP.
The DWP conceded that the overpayment was not recoverable. By raising the right argument we averted the need for a costly appeal hearing. The DWP did not apologise for their mistake but they agreed the overpayment was caused by their error and are not recovering it.
Hopefully highlighting cases like this helps the DWP realise where official error exists. It was our intervention which avoided the overpayment remaining undetected. Legal Aid highlights cases where it is official error which results in the State erroneously paying money. In this case we prevented the mistake continuing.
In this case we were pleased that we were able to avert a huge problem and to some degree alleviate some of the distress which Mrs W suffered at a time of great personal distress.
Can I also say, whilst we were sympathetic and sensitive, we were also efficient. But then again you have to be when all you are paid for a welfare benefits case is the standard fixed fee of £167
What would have happened if Mrs W had not been able to access Legal Help? What will happen to people in similar situations if the Government remove the whole of welfare benefits from the scope of public funding, as it plans to do?
Mrs W was understandably overwhelmed with grief, she came to see us clutching a letter saying her Council Tax Benefit had been suspended because she had not completed and returned a change of circumstances form to the Local Authority, the letters were unpleasant and greatly upsetting to Mrs W, especially when they came so shortly after having to arrange a funeral for her late mother.
Mrs W was completely unable to deal with the correspondence, including the review form because they came to her whilst she was dealing with her mother's admission to hospital and then the affairs associated with her loss.
We sympathetically went through all the paperwork with Mrs W and realised that an overpayment had arisen because Mrs W had continued to receive payments of the child addition in her Income Support for her son, despite child benefits stopping a few years beforehand when he had left school and took up a work based apprenticeship.
We sensitively explained that the overpayment would be considerable and made a disclosure to the Local Council who, to their credit, treated the case most sympathetically. The issue concerning the Council Tax Benefit was resolved with our assistance, this came as a great relief to Mrs W at a time of great distress.
A similar disclosure was made to the DWP but their treatment was far less sympathetic. They wrote a demanding letter asking for the return of almost £10,000. Mrs W was immensely shocked by this and we encouraged her to appeal.
An appeal was made against the overpayment because the DWP were aware of the position regarding Mrs W's son, she had visited the JobCentre on work focussed interviews, since claiming Income Support whilst looking after her elderly grandmother as a carer. The Jobcentre had not realised that a work based apprenticeship meant the son was treated as a non-dependant; they would also have had access to details of the child benefit cessation on their system; whilst apparently 'checking Mrs W was receiving the correct amount of money'.
On the grounds of official error, we challenged the overpayment, we asked for full details of each visit that Mrs W made to the Jobcentre and details of the review forms which were completed in the presence of a DWP officer. We maintained that the overpayment was non-recoverable as our client had no reason to believe she was being overpaid because her claim had been regularly checked off by an officer of the DWP.
The DWP conceded that the overpayment was not recoverable. By raising the right argument we averted the need for a costly appeal hearing. The DWP did not apologise for their mistake but they agreed the overpayment was caused by their error and are not recovering it.
Hopefully highlighting cases like this helps the DWP realise where official error exists. It was our intervention which avoided the overpayment remaining undetected. Legal Aid highlights cases where it is official error which results in the State erroneously paying money. In this case we prevented the mistake continuing.
In this case we were pleased that we were able to avert a huge problem and to some degree alleviate some of the distress which Mrs W suffered at a time of great personal distress.
Can I also say, whilst we were sympathetic and sensitive, we were also efficient. But then again you have to be when all you are paid for a welfare benefits case is the standard fixed fee of £167
What would have happened if Mrs W had not been able to access Legal Help? What will happen to people in similar situations if the Government remove the whole of welfare benefits from the scope of public funding, as it plans to do?