carers allowance means tested ??

DX2

greenface wrote: »

I still really only want to know how i managed to get extra funds without applying for anything different.

Okay so we start here, firstly you have to apply for CA, they don't automatically pay you this.

Did you claim and fill in form for CA for both your son and your wife?
When you got awarded CA, did you inform IS? <<<This could be the crux of the overpayment.
If you informed the IS dept of your CA payment, they would have reduced your IS payment and paid a carers' premium.

For example: If you were getting £100 in IS, then you got £60 in CA, IS would deduct this £60 from your IS claim but they would then go on to add on a £30 carer premium onto your IS.
They wouldn't let you keep the £100 IS plus the £60 CA, basically all they are doing is giving in one hand and taking away with the other hand and adding on a £30 premium.

greenface

kelloggs36 wrote: »

When you claimed CA, did you notify IS that you had made this claim? If not, then they will ask for you to repay it. If you did, then you won't have to repay it as it will be classed as Official Error. They should have reduced the IS according to the amount of CA that you got.

sorry for bringing this back to the top.... can somebody please pop a link to the offical error to consider my options for appeal thanks

edit to say thanks i have found a portion .
http://www.benefitanswers.co.uk/Latest-Benefit-News/power-to-recover-official-error-overpayments-under-common-law.html in this link
Power to recover official error overpayments under common law

Supreme Court rules unanimously in CPAG's favour

The Supreme Court has today ruled unanimously that the DWP does not have the power to recover official error overpayments under common law.
The Supreme Court judgment concerns a test case brought by the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) challenging the DWP's practice of seeking to recover official error overpayments under the common law and highlighting the fact that, between March 2006 and February 2007, the government wrote to more than 65,000 claimants telling them that money overpaid due to the DWP's error, whilst not recoverable under social security law, could be recovered through the courts if they did not pay the money back.
With the Court of Appeal having found in CPAG's favour, the Secretary of State then appealed to the Supreme Court.
In The Child Poverty Action Group v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2010] UKSC 54 (8 December 2010), Lord Brown dismisses the Secretary of State's appeal, stating, in a lead judgment, that section 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 provides not just for an express entitlement to recover overpaid benefits in cases of misrepresentation or non-disclosure, but also for the whole process of determining the facts relevant to such entitlement, including making provision for appeals to a tribunal, and that -
'It seems to me inconceivable that Parliament would have contemplated leaving the suggested common law restitutionary route to the recovery of overpayments available to the Secretary of State to be pursued by way of ordinary court proceedings alongside the carefully prescribed scheme of recovery set out in the statute.' (paragraph 14)
In the other lead judgment, Sir John Dyson states that he agrees with Lord Brown that section 71 was intended to be an exhaustive code, and Lord Rodgers give a judgment concurring with both Lord Brown and Lord Rodgers.