Hi Heva. I recommend you start with the tribunal sticky. Click here to access it. This should assist you immensely in your appeal. Should you have any questions, please ask.

That's ok, everyone starts somewhere. When I joined a forum for the first time, it took me about 3 days to figure out that I was actually able to post my own threads! The guide to the forum is very good, it's a visual guide so very easy to follow. Trouble is with the internet that most websites/forums are publicly accessible so anyone can read what's been written.

It's all in the forum rules You may find this useful: How do I...? A guide to using the forum Some of it is outdated with the introduction of modernised software, but most of it is still applicable and you will find it is similar for other forums.

I'll remove the reference in posts not made within the last 24 hours and replace it with alternative wording that is not an identifier. I'll also remove references in other people's posts and where you've been quoted. You are able to edit your own posts for up to 24 hours after they are made, so I will leave you to edit those ones as you require. Click on the 'edit' button underneath each post to do this. Please do note that we do not normally edit member's posts when they request it without compelling reasons for doing so, however as you are new I'll make an exception. Please do read the forum rules though so that you are aware of these things.

Hello. I see that you have had answers to questions 1,2 and 3. In relation to question 4, the answer is that you should not apply for a Community Care Grant. By your own admission you now have the items that you wanted to apply for, courtesy of your tax rebate. I can understand you feeling aggrieved that others may have received one based on the element of benefit they were in receipt of, but this is would not justify applying for something that you no longer need. In answer to your question about the legalities, you would be committing fraud if you gave a false declaration in order to benefit by applying for monetary award in respect of items stating that you do not have them when in actual fact you do. If however you require other items that you do not possess and that a community care grant can help with then by all means apply.

There is a thread running about it on the benefit forums, it's keeping it alive but an announcement is a great idea. Will bring it to the fore for people who aren't aware.

Last week but they can be watched on bbc1 iplayer or 4Od (online)

By all means you can sue DWP however courts generally expect you to have attempted to resolve a dispute before litigating. There is also the added issue that unlike criminal legal aid, civil legal is harder to get; in addition to the income/capital checks, they will also consider if you have a reasonable prospect of success and whether you could resolve the dispute in other ways before deciding whether or not to award legal aid. It seems to me that you have suffered financial detriment and are seeking to be placed back into the position that you would have been in, had they not stopped your benefit - this is what the court would look at anyway in considering a claim. Although your benefit will be (if it hasn't already been) restored and you will receive arrears of the benefit that they stopped, sometimes this does not place people back into the position that they would have been in and it certainly sounds to me as if you have lost more than the arrears of benefit will cover. What I would recommend is applying to the DWP first for financial redress. You can read all about it here. If that is unsuccessful, then take it to court if that is still your wish, where you will be able to demonstrate that you have done everything you can to try and resolve the dispute (appealed the decision and sought financial redress independently).

The maximum they can take is three third party payments at any given time. Third party payments for fuel are a maximum of £3.55 per deduction so that's a total maximum of £10.65 per week. However, you mention a loan that is currently being deducted. If this is for a Social Fund loan, this is not classified as a third party payment because the Social Fund is not a third party; they are all part of the Department for Work and Pensions.

Yes, that's my point. It can't be 'first impressions' in the way he so clearly intended it to mean where the tribunal has information from both parties available for consideration.

Chris Grayling, on the successful appeal stats: "I think you have to look at why the appeals are successful. I wish the Judges sometimes looked beyond the first impression and thought is it really the case that these people could not return to any form of work". Absolutely laughable. I wish he would consider that tribunal judges are not only given the claimant's 'version' of how sick they are; the DWP provide a full submission of their reasons for the decision to the tribunal and this includes the ATOS WCA findings, so it is far more than 'first impressions' that are available to the tribunal for fact finding. I also wish he considered before making such an ill thought out statement that the DWP do not know the reasons for the outcome unless they apply to the Tribunal for a statement of reasons, and if they do so and discover that the Tribunal have not applied the law (descriptors) correctly to the facts or have not taken certain facts into account (this appears to be what is insinuated) then this would be sufficient to constitute an error of law and the DWP would then be free to apply for permission to the Upper Tier Tribunal to appeal the First Tier Tribunal's determination. So, by his statement, either the DWP are not acting correctly (the original decision) or the DWP are not acting correctly (appealing to the upper tier when an error of law has been made). Either way, that's one hell of a closed statement and both theories lead back to the DWP. Then of course there is the possibility that he doesn't appear to have considered which is of course that the appeals are successful because the system is not working the way that it is supposed to be, because the processes in which the WCA's are conducted are seriously flawed. That seems a more sensible conclusion to me, based on all of the content of both the programmes tonight. A Dr had 4 out of 8 of his assessments handed back to him, with him being told to lower the points he'd awarded, and told this by someone who had not even met the claimant?! Gee, that really shows the system as an impartial one when a qualified Dr has his professional medical opinion undermined in such a way.

I'll be watching both the programmes tonight, but I hope to goodness that this time they focus more on claimants who are badly let down by the system. Critics need to see the other side of the coin from the rubbish that is pedalled about in certain tabloids. We've seen programmes before on this issue and all they seem to do is justify the assessments which have already been deemed by consumer organisations as unfit for purpose. Usually it's a big focus on benefit 'chancers' and a tiny, almost obscure clip of someone suffering at the hands of an unjust system. Given the (successful) appeal statistics, anyone can see that getting it right is a huge problem. Let's hope that this time around, the real issue about ESA assessments is brought forward. People who should have got through the assessment and don't are part of the larger issue but aside from that, there are also lots of people who are falling through the cracks of the assessment. They are not fit enough for work, yet aren't deemed sick enough for ESA. I won't name this person but everything written is on the public forum - if she wants to reveal who she is, fair enough but I won't do it as that is her choice to make. It's a member here, who is now on the third merry go round of ESA. A member who's condition cannot get better; as a progressive condition, it can only get worse. This member has the patience of a saint and it appears that everyone involved in her claims have agreed that she doesn't 'fit' in the boxes but that there is little they can do to help. Too ill to work, but not ill enough to receive sickness related benefit. She will qualify for ESA every time during the assessment phase, because she will likely always have an exacerbation by the time it comes to reclaim it after yet another failed appeal. Anyone else on ESA as long as she has effectively been will be receiving a component payment; she's been on the assessment rate for years now. She goes round and round in a circle, and it's an outrage that she has to 'hope' for her condition to get to a stage acceptable to ESA just so that she doesn't have the stress of the appeal/reclaim merry-go-round anymore. I have great admiration for this person and I really don't know how she does it.

Most full time students cannot get housing benefit, as you've found out. However the information you have located is written in such a way that it is intended to be read as if the main benefit claimant is the student because the rules only apply if the claimant is the student. i.e you are the main benefit claimant and your husband is a partner in the claim. So yes, your housing benefit would stop if you were a full time student and the benefit claimant and you did not fall into any of the exempt categories. However there is nothing to stop your husband from then submitting a claim for housing benefit and council tax benefit, with him as the claimant and you as the partner. This is legitimate, by the way, it's not a 'get out clause', and many councils will actually advise people to do this.

Hi Stan Lee. Exactly right about the access to savings - it would depend (hugely) on what he means by inability to access it and where the funds are held. If it doesn't fall within the social security definition of disregarded capital then it affects benefit. If it does fall within the definition then he'd still be entitled to benefit until such a time as they can be included in the capital calculations. An ad pen is issued by the department that brings the fraud action as an alternative to prosecution, not by the courts. There is nothing that says they can't or won't prosecute for less than £2000; it's just rare that they do unless there are other factors involved which would make it an appropriate prosecution referral, and the prosecution clearly think they have a case otherwise for that amount, they'd decline it and hand it back - it wouldn't be worth the bother for such a paltry sum (paltry in the grand scheme of things), as they already have their money back. My guess here, given the amount is that there probably are other factors involved (or at least the department believes that there are) and those likely have a higher bearing on their reasons for referral for prosecution rather than the sum involved. It's certainly something that he can argue before it goes to court to try and get an Ad Pen but in my experience, I've only seen them divert from prosecution once a court date is set a handful of times. So go for it (via solicitor) but do not get hopes up too much.

RHYS01, I agree wholeheartedly that it is imperative to get yourself some representation, I really cannot stress that enough. This is too much to deal with alone. A solicitor knows how the process works, they know what to look for insofar as testing the prosecutions' case against you and they know what to say (if the worst happens) in mitigation. For a total overpayment of £2290, and a first offence that was fraudulent from the outset, if (and that's a big 'if' - see below for information on determining guilt) any penalty you receive is not going to be astronomical. I could guess it with a bit more info but I'm not going to for 2 reasons. The first being that it is only a guess and the second being that I'd have to give you a wide range of possibilities, some of which may be highly unlikely to happen. I've guessed before for others and found that even where I stress that it would be near to impossible for them to get a certain penalty, they panic anyway and start driving themselves crazy. And don't go googling it. In terms of a situation like this, google is certainly not your friend. The internet is a mine of information and a hell of a lot of it is false, or opinion. Opinion is not fact. Stay away from search engines with this one. The reason I am telling you this is because right now, you have to focus and you are not going to do yourself any good by obsessing over this. Your focus at the moment needs to be your defence and any mitigation, not what may happen. What may happen will only happen if you are found guilty. Look away from the word 'guilty'. Now. I mean it, draw your eyes away from it. You need to concentrate on a defence if you believe that you are innocent in the legal meaning of fraud. Yes, there is a legal meaning. Just because you didn't declare something, that is not enough to convict you. Solicitors understand the legal meaning (I've mentioned it briefly below), they will be able to lay their hands on the evidence that the prosecution has and will be able to see from that evidence whether your failure to declare meets the legal meaning. I can go on about it all I want, but what it comes down to is the evidence. I don't know what they have or what their line of argument will be at this stage and I'm pretty sure you won't either. Just to add to what has already been posted about declarations and offsetting etc It is during sentencing that they consider the overpayment claimed as a result of the fraud; the overpayment is used as a measuring tool for sentencing. It is not for the criminal court to make a determination of whether there should be an overpayment, how much the overpayment should be or whether off-setting should be used (and as has been stated a loan cannot be offset against capital for welfare provision); it is whether the court believe that the criminal act was in fact committed, that results in the court's determination of whether a person is guilty or not guilty. Very, very occasionally does the criminal court rule on the sum of the overpayment as this is not their territory - the amount has nothing to do with whether a person is guilty of the offence of fraud - it does not take into account whether they actually gained from it (except for sentencing) just that gaining was the intention. The court will not rule whether a person is guilty or not guilty based on the sum of the overpayment; though it will listen to both the prosecution and the defence's reasoning for the sum involved so that they can decide what sentence is appropriate in view of the magnitude of the fraud, amongst other factors - such as whether it was a first offence, how long the fraud was and the seriousness. The court's role is to reach a conclusion, based on the evidence presented, whether the accused committed an act of benefit fraud, as defined in the Social Security Administration Act (as amended). There are many fraud offences under this law. In this case it would depend on whether he was charged under section 111 or 112. If under 111: it will be considered whether the accused dishonestly made a false statement or representation with a view to obtaining any benefit or other payment or advantage under the social security legislation, whether for himself or for some other person. If under 112: it will be considered whether he made a statement or representation which he knew to be false, with the purpose of obtaining any benefit or other payment or advantage under the social security legislation, whether for himself or for some other person. (RHYS01: See this paragraph for the brief legal meaning) There really is no question that RHYS01 made a false statement - he declared that he had no capital. This satisfies what is known in 'legal speak' as actus reus- the guilty act. But to be found guilty, a guilty act in and of itself is not enough. Mens rea must also have been present, except in cases where the offence is one of strict liability. Benefit fraud is not a srtict liability offence, so the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove mens rea in order to to secure a conviction. Mens rea means that the person knew or could reasonably foresee that what they were doing was unlawful (sometimes it is referred to as 'with intent' or 'wilfully'). So the real question is whether in making the false statement, whether he did so dishonestly (section 111) or knowingly (section 112) and in order to obtain benefit or other payment or advantage under the social security legislation, whether for himself or for some other person. If they cannot satisfy the burden of proof that he did so dishonestly or knowingly with the intent of gaining, there will be no conviction. In terms of recovery of an overpayment, this is civil jurisdiction and it is here that a person could argue the value of the overpayment or whether there should be one at all. Even where criminal courts have determined that the claimant was not guilty of fraud, there can still be a recoverable overpayment - because the standard of proof required in civil proceedings is less than that required for criminal courts proceedings. A person can have an overpayment as a result of failing to declare capital but not be found guilty because the criminal court decided that although there was a failure to declare, this was not done dishonestly. I've seen many cases where the claimant has been found not guilty in magistrates/crown courts but has a recoverable overpayment which is upheld in the Secretary of State's favour in the Social Entitlement chamber of an appeal tribunal. Of course I've seen it go the other way too, where a person has been convicted of benefit fraud but when they appealed the overpayment in the Social Entitlement chamber of the appeals tribunal, the tribunal have decided that the overpayment is not recoverable.

Yes. Whilst you are sanctioned, you are still a JSA claimant and are still bound by the JSA conditions, you just don't receive payment of the benefit. If your claim is terminated you would not be entitled to continued hardship payments; the hardship would be payable (if you qualify) for the duration of the sanction on your JSA claim only. If a JSA claim terminates no payment will be made. You need to establish whether your JSA claim is going to terminate. It says so in the letter but as you state, you are not in receipt of contributory based JSA so that part of the letter doesn't make sense. Phone the number on the letter tomorrow and ask them to confirm whether your JSA is ending on 8th August, explain what is on the letter and that you are not in receipt of contribution based JSA. If they don't understand it, ask for a call back from a JSA decision maker and ask anything they say to be confirmed to you in writing if it is different from what is on your letter.

Hardship is paid at the rate of JSA minus a 20% deduction if the claimant is pregnant or seriously ill, or at the JSA rate minus a 40% deduction if the claimant is not pregnant or seriously ill. Hardship is payable immediately if you qualify and are in a vulnerable group, or from the 15th day of the sanction if you qualify but are not in a vulnerable group. This information is contained in the hardship guide that is in the attachment in my last post - it is important to read it if you intend applying for hardship as it will help you understand how they reach a decision so that you can provide all of the information needed on your application to prevent further delay in payments if you qualify. If all the information they need is not on your application, they will write to you to request it. I cannot stress enough how important it is to understand your position and theirs because it by knowing what they are looking for that you can submit a good application and appeal.

Hi, and Welcome to CAG. Unfortunately you cannot get a crisis loan to make up for money lost due to a sanction on a benefit claim. Crisis Loans are restricted for people subject to a sanction on JSA unless they fall within a vulnerable group (in the bullet points below) and are immediately entitled to be considered for hardship payments. • a single pregnant woman; • members of couples or polygamous marriages where at least one member of the couple or marriage is pregnant; • a single person responsible for children or young people; • members of couples or polygamous marriages responsible for children or young people; • a person who qualifies for Disability Premium; • a person with long-term medical conditions; • a person who provides care for disabled people; • certain 16 or 17 year olds; and • certain persons under the age of 21 Do appeal against the decision and whilst you await the outcome of your appeal, apply for hardship payments if you are going to be in hardship as a result of the decision. To help you in your appeal I've attached the sanction guide that DWP Decision Makers use. I've also attached the hardship guide that they use to help you in applying for that. You will find the attachments at the bottom of my post. I'm not able to offer any clarity on why they have spoken about contributions if your claim is income based - but then again the letters are never very clear, they are computer generated by the inputting of data to the system so it may be that the wrong data has been input, i couldn't say. In your appeal, make sure you appeal against both the sanction and the apparent upcoming termination of your claim. DWP Sanction guide.pdf Hardship guide.pdf

Uncle Bulgaria has given sound advice, nothing to add really but would like to point out, there are no members of the Site Team who work in a Jobcentre.

They both have a responsibility and in my view, they have not nearly fulfilled it. Barlcays should at the very least take responsibility for returning the payment in the first place. Who did it, why was it done, what are they doing to be sure that it won't happen again? DLA won't be able to mark anyone as deceased without verifiable evidence such as a death certificate or a notification of death from the Registrar, in which case the claim would be suspended. Though they can mark it as unverified (which doesn't suspend a claim) if they are informed that a claimant has died. It shouldn't matter that they cannot prove who marked it on the system that she was dead - the DWP are supposed to take responsibility as an organisation, and they must be able to demonstrate for what reason they were in a record when questioned about it. If they are questioned, they will have to produce evidence which showed they accessed the account for legitimate government business - presumably a death cert, telephone record or something similar. They can be checked and questioned if their is a complaint/query that gives rise to the question of why a particular action was taken. They can also be checked at random selection by the computer system - I can't recall the name of this check - but someone who works in DWP would likely know. Oh - and they can prove who marked the claimant as dead. All they need to do is a full audit trail and it will produce a result showing who was in the record, when they were in the record and what action they took. As a governmental computer system, every key stroke is logged. I would send a letter of complaint to DWP stating that Barclays insist they did not mark her as dead and you would like a full investigation carried out including an audit trail so that they can establish what caused them to mark her as a deceased person. Presumably Barclays, being holders of sensitive personal data will have a similar system available (audit trail) to determine by whom the payment was returned and why. If you want to leave it then I understand. Personally, I would want to know all of the inns and outs - I'd want to be satisfied that they had located the source of the problem and from that had set procedures in place to ensure it did not happen again. If sending a written complaint, your mum will need to sign it unless you are her legal appointee/appointee for benefit purposes or guardianship. If you do not hold any, she will need to sign any letters but she should include a signed statement that she authorises you to deal with this matter on her behalf (if that's what she wants) - this will prevent you coming up against a brick wall if you are having trouble getting them to deal with you directly.

As I understand it, any lump sum personal injury payment (including an out of court settlement by an insurance company) which is not held in trust will be disregarded for 52 weeks or until the payment is spent, whichever occurs first. Once the 52 weeks have expired, it will be treated as capital. If the amount is under £6000, it will not affect her housing benefit. If it is between £6000 and £16000, her housing benefit will be reduced for every £250 or part thereof between £6000 and £16000. If it's over £16000, she will become disentitled to housing benefit.

Telephone claim? You did declare it, the DWP put it in the wrong place. I know JSA can be both income based and contribution based where the contributions are insufficient to pay the minimum the law says a person needs to live on and where the claim is a joint claim; yours is not a joint claim. But in any case as you have been on it for longer than a year, it will soon only be income based - if it isn't already, perhaps the WO has it wrong. I'm going to mark your thread for the attention of an ESA expert re the CB/IB claim as they may know something that I don't. I'm also going to remove your signature as the information contained is no longer the case and hasn't been for some time.

A couple of questions. How old is your son and how many hours a week does he work?

SAR doesn't appear to have attached to my last post. Here, try again. Is it below? dwp sar.rtf

My advice would be the same, if the debt is statute barred. DCA's can come across more heavy handed. If they were able to recover it in court, they would not be sending a DCA out in my opinion because Debt Management have their own litigation department, I believe. I can't see them farming it out to a DCA to enforce if they were able to enforce it themselves at a lesser cost via court. However if you are very concerned or are worried that they may take it out of benefit/pension at a later date, put them to proof - write a letter stating that you would like to see evidence of the debt that they allege. In fact, I'd be inclined to submit a Subject Access Request for all information they hold on your Income Support claim for that period. The standard charge for SAR's is £10 but the DWP do not charge for them. There is a SAR template attached. They must send it to their Data Protection Unit who must comply with it within 40 days. The reason I suggest a SAR is because not only will it give you information if there is an overpayment but it should also tell you how it has been calculated and what caused it. With an overpayment that old, it may be possible that it is a non-recoverable overpayment (if an overpayment exists at all) which was a result of official error. If it is official error rather than something that you did or failed to do, then they should not be seeking recovery of it at all. If you are sending a SAR, this will go to the data protection department so you would also need to advise debt management that you are disputing the debt and want them to hold recovery on it until they send you proof (do this in addition to your SAR). dwp sar.rtf