Back-dating claims & Appeals

epitome

Just to come back to this. The reason I would appeal is because irrespective of when my job finished, It may have been 6 weeks ago, or 2 weeks ago or it might have been on Friday 1st June. The point is I decide on Saturday 2nd June 2012 that I want to start claiming. But I find I am unable to because they are closed.

On Wednesday the 6th June I finally am able to claim so I do that and back date to the date I decided I wanted to claim and found I was unable to.

It cannot be right that you say I should have decided to claim earlier. It's not for you to decide when I should decide to claim, and I don't have a crystal ball so I can't see into the future..

The bottom line is on the day I wanted to claim, I was unable to, and I should not be penalised for that.

dookar

epitome wrote: »

The bottom line is on the day I wanted to claim, I was unable to, and I should not be penalised for that.

You'e getting caught up in 'fair' and 'unfair', the law doesn't concern itself with these things.

epitome

I do disagree with you, and I believe if this is the way some decision makers are taking a line on this then I believe they are wrong.

My reasons are:
The SOCIAL SECURITY (CLAIMS AND PAYMENTS) REGULATIONS 1987 (as ammended)

Regulation 19 Time for claiming benefit:
<snip>
(6) In the case of a claim for income support, jobseeker’s allowance, <snip> where the claim is not made within the time specified for that benefit in Schedule 4, the prescribed time for claiming the benefit shall be extended, subject to a maximum extension of one month, to the date on which the claim is made, where–
(a) any one or more of the circumstances specified in paragraph (7) applies or has applied to the claimant; and
(b) as a result of that circumstance or those circumstances the claimant could not reasonably have been expected to make the claim earlier.,

The reasons "because phone lines are closed" and "office closed" are both listed as legitimate reasons in paragraph (7)

The way I read paragraph (b) is:
"as a result of that circumstance or those circumstances the claimant could not reasonably have been expected to make the claim earlier [within the period being climed for than the date on which contact was actually made].
what they refer to as "earlier" would be any time from the date of contact going back to the date claimed from i.e. the Saturday.

In our example, it is true the office is closed and it is true the phones are closed on Sat, Sun Mon & Tues, A claim made on Wednesday to start from Saturday could not have been reasonably made earlier than Wednesday.

I'm afraid I see nothing there to suggest any requirement to make an advanced claim.

Compare that to a different example, a claimant phones on Tuesday the offices and phones were open on Monday also, he says "I want to claim from Saturday because your lines were closed on the weekend". He does not have good cause because "he could have claimed earlier" i.e. Monday

You may very well reply that you interpret "earlier" as meaning he should have claimed before the weekend. My point is that there is nothing to back you up in that interpretation. So it would come down to "what is the actual intended meaning?" I say one thing, you say another, neither of us can point to any law reference that backs up our respective interpretations. An adjudicator would have to decide what the law makers intended by the word "earlier".

If you also argue that they should have reasonably made a claim on Sat, Sun Mon or Tues by post, then I would say that would not be reasonable. Because the preferred method of claim is by phone/online we can ignore online because it is not reasonable to expect people to use online for many reasons. And when you go to a jobcentre they tell you to apply by phone. However even if the claimant is aware they can claim by post, they would not reasonably decide to claim by post because the post would not be delivered until Wed or Thursday, and even if by magic it was delivered immediately on Saturday, the office would not be open to open the post until Wednesday. So I don't think the man on Clapham Omnibus would reasonably decide that he should claim by post during Sat, Sun, Mon or Tues.

All IMHO of course

missapril75

epitome wrote: »

My reasons are:
The SOCIAL SECURITY (CLAIMS AND PAYMENTS) REGULATIONS 1987 (as ammended)
The reasons "because phone lines are closed" and "office closed" are both listed as legitimate reasons in paragraph (7)

Further to what I suggested earlier, let me put it a different way.

All of those conditions relating to good cause are about exceptional situations. Adverse weather gets a mention. Normally one could get to the office to make a claim. But if there's a hurricane blowing and one can't get there, that's a reasonable excuse.

Here's paragraph 7 you mentioned.

(7) The circumstances referred to in paragraph (6) are—
(a)the appropriate office where the claimant would be expected to make a claim was closed and alternative arrangements were not available;

Note that it says alternative arrangements were not available. This would cover where an industrial dispute meant the office couldn't open and there was nowhere else available.

Or perhaps there was some emergency that closed the office - bomb scare, fire etc.

It's all stuff out of the ordinary.

It's not just the office being closed, there's an additional bit. Office closed and no alternative arrangement.

If an office is closed for refurbishment, there's the need for alternative arrangement in another building or something.

If it's the weekend, there is no alternative arrangement necessary because it's the norm.

This might seem a quirk but then so is the three waiting days rule which is presumably based on some decades old idea that you are back at work within 3 days of falling sick or being laid off.:rotfl:

dookar

Does it say "the claimant could not reasonably have been expected to make the claim earlier within the period for which he wishes to claim"?

epitome

missapril75 wrote: »

Further to what I suggested earlier, let me put it a different way.

"where any one or more applies" so it also includes "Phone lines inoperative"

However "The office closed" does apply for the weekend, and there are effectively no alternatives available from Sat through to Tuesday, you can't phone and if you post it they won't receive it.

The list is not all about extraordinary circumstances, nowhere does it say that the circumstance has to be extraordinary, it just says it has to be a circumstance on the list.

You say yourself " If it's the weekend, there is no alternative arrangement necessary because it's the norm." Yet this idea of no claims allowed outside of office hours is not written into the law.

It comes down to two tests,
Is the reason on the list = Yes
Is there a reasonable alternative available for the period in dispute i.e. Sat Sun Mon Tues? = No
Has therefore good cause been established? = Yes

"3 waiting days" is written down in statute. My point is, the view you are putting on this is not written down in statute.

epitome

dookar wrote: »

Does it say "the claimant could not reasonably have been expected to make the claim earlier within the period for which he wishes to claim"?

No, and neither does it say "the claimant could not reasonably have been expected to make the claim previous to the period for which he wishes to claim"

dookar

epitome wrote: »

No, and neither does it say "the claimant could not reasonably have been expected to make the claim previous to the period for which he wishes to claim"

Because it doesn't need to. It's inferred. What you're actually doing is adding a bit that isn't there and then basing your interpretation on that.

Could a person unemployed on a Friday have reasonably made a claim starting from the Saturday before the Monday on which they actually make the claim? The answer is yes, they could reasonably have made the claim on the Friday

epitome

You are also adding a bit that is not there. You can't say my bit is wrong just because your bit is right.
(yes, I know we both are saying this fighting our own corners - but you cannot (and nor can I) say I am ultimately correct because the law is not written to support either view) I could also say "because it doesn't need to" in reply to post #30.
All you can do, IMHO is do what I have done and accept it does not specifically support either of our views and it needs to be put before an adjudicator to see which of us has interpreted it as the lawmakers intended.

My own opinion is that the claimant has decided on a particular day to make a claim, before that day he may not have been sure he wanted to claim. You are saying he should be penalised for not wanting to claim prior to date that he actually wants to claim from, that to my mind is nonsense (in the nicest possible way). And therefore "earlier" refers to within the period being claimed for.

dookar

I'm really not adding anything, I'm saying the lack of a 'something' is obvious. It's an open statement which you are trying to narrow.

I get the impression you work for JCP? Ask a good cause decision maker, come back and let me know what they say. I'd be interested (that's not a statement of my benig right, genuine interest)