advice on this letter please?

suelees1

As leemack says there are good and bad. I deal mainly with one LA which I must admit do everything by the book. I've also dealt with others but I've never come across them using this tactic before (although there are some whose processing and decision making leaves a lot to be desired).

Vixie_Pixie

suelees1 wrote: »

As leemack says there are good and bad. I deal mainly with one LA which I must admit do everything by the book. I've also dealt with others but I've never come across them using this tactic before (although there are some whose processing and decision making leaves a lot to be desired).

my LA does a reconsideration first, then an appeal to a high level benefits officer and then tribunal. Some i know only do appeal then tribunal. It does vary from LA to LA tho.

If the OP was given the choice of a "paper hearing" or "oral hearing" always go for the "oral hearing" i think they are much better as you can dispute the LAs statement

red_devil

thanks for help. I filled out a statement and sent it in asking them not to ask for payment back and giving some reasons so dont think that was an official appeal. I had a letter back saying i could appeal if no good then it would go to a tribunal?

Do they ask to see bank statements if you go to a tribubal?

is there any chance they would reduce the payment owed. I think its unfair asking people on benefit to repay money. I have hardly been living the high life its just money i have had to live? how do they expect people on benefits to repay money isnt your benefit for food and bills?

I apparantely had overpayment they say i didnt notify them in writing of a change of circumstances i say i did tell them but I dont have any proof any copies of letter etc?

What are my chances if i appeal when i cant prove i have a copy of a letter i sent them?

Thanks.

leemack

if you can't prove anything then its your word against the LA and the LA generally win that one, unfortunately.

red_devil

Would they consider reducing it down do you think? It dosent matter how long they give you to repay it its still alot of money!
Isnt your benefit money for food and bills what if you say repaying all this would leave you in financial hardship and offer to pay some!

Is it worth a go?

leemack

certainly worth a go. Fill in the income and expenditure forms showing what you can afford to pay, but you probably want to offer no less than £3 a week. You then show that you only have £3 a week left after essential outgoings.

red_devil

Thanks. what i meant was can i ask them to reduce the overall payment on the grounds of it would leave me in hardship. I am baffled how you are expect to pay money back out of your benefit. No matter how long they give you its as broad as its long you still end up paying the full amount. I thought by law your benefit was money to live on for food and bills how do they expect you to find money for overpayments.

Its already a struggle on benefits getting by,without them wanting to take extra money? There will be extra heating bills with this cold weather too.

As i said its only money you have had for a roof over your head not living the high life?

Can i say i cant afford to pay the full amount back but offer say half I am thinking your going to say no they wont buy it!

leemack

I doubt very much they'll reduce the total amount you have to pay, but there are other posters who work for LA's and know more about internal policy on this.

The best result I've had is for someone to have recovery reduced to £1 a week which meant they'd in theory be making repayments for 14 years.

fluffymovie

Ok I'll bite!

I work for an LA and my job is to administer benefit. The money is tax payers cash and if it is overpaid, it's the tax payer who loses out ( I am also a tax payer!)

A great result whereby the tax payer doesn't get their money back for 14 years isn't what I would call a result for them.

If you have an overpayment of benefit, your Local Authority are saying that you have received money that you were not entitled to. They have to consider what is called Underlying Entitlement which would reduce the o.p to take into account what you would have received had they had your correct details.

If after they have done this, they still consider that you have had benefit you should not have received, that money is due back in full. They will not consider reducing the amount.

leemack

I hear what you're saying fluffymovie. However sometimes there are extenuating circumstances.

In saying 'best result' I wasn't implying that it was fantastic that the LA wasn't going to get their money back for so long. Simply that 'best result' was the most generous a LA I'd dealt with had been when dealing with overpayment recovery. If someone owes the money, then they owe the money.

However, in some circumstances people geniunely don't realise they are being overpaid. They think they did everything right, or do not understand the rules properly. It's not in the public interest to cause these people hardship in order to collect an overpayment, there was no deliberate action. And that's why sometimes the decision is made for a lengthier repayment period. Although I can't imagine its very nice having the overpayment hanging over your head for that long.

LA's seem to be pretty fair when it comes to recovery, but what I was trying to say, is overpayments are not reduced due to hardship, the most that can be hoped for is a lower repayment rate - in my normal rambling way, sorry!