Back-dating claims & Appeals

epitome

Sorry but I think it reads obviously to support my view,

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.,

To me it is saying the prescribed time can be extended, if within the extended time a claim could not otherwise have been made.

To read anything else into it would not make sense because, as I say, you would be penalising someone for not claiming before they they knew they wanted to claim.

I have the same access as anyone else has to a Good Cause DM, I would have to write a letter addressed to a BC and wait for a reply.

I'm happy with my interpretation, yes, I would like to ask for clarification alongside a number of other issues I have, but I am yet to write that letter. Like everyone else I have other things to do.

And if I ever make a claim on a Monday you know what date I will be claiming from and then I might return to this thread.

dookar

epitome wrote: »

Sorry but I think it reads obviously to support my view,

To me it is saying the prescribed time can be extended, if within the extended time a claim could not otherwise have been made.

To read anything else into it would not make sense because, as I say, you would be penalising someone for not claiming before they they knew they wanted to claim.

Huh? No idea what you mean there. It's nothing to do with penalising, either.

epitome wrote: »

I have the same access as anyone else has to a Good Cause DM, I would have to write a letter addressed to a BC and wait for a reply.

May I PM you?

epitome

dookar wrote: »

Huh? No idea what you mean there. It's nothing to do with penalising, either.

The paragraph is saying that the prescribed time for claiming benefit (for JSA the prescribed time is the day of the start of the claim i.e. one day) can be extended. i.e. by extending the precribed time you are giving people a longer window in which to claim JSA. So if someone wants to claim from Saturday their prescribed time can be extended to 3, 4 or 5 days to allow for weekends or weekends & bank holidays. What I was saying is that as the paragraph is talking about "an extended period" it is logical to refer to the word "earlier" as "earlier within that period" IMHO.

It would be penalised because he wanted to claim from Saturday and found that he was not allowed to just because the offices were closed that's not his fault, it is out of his control.

May I PM you?

You may

missapril75

epitome wrote: »

The list is not all about extraordinary circumstances, nowhere does it say that the circumstance has to be extraordinary

I appreciate that, but I think it's a "given" because they all mean something outside of the norm.

It's not routine is it? There has to be "good cause." By it's very nature, good cause is something exceptional otherwise it wouldn't be a separate consideration.

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

I think you are expecting perfection where it doesn't always happen. As expert as some people may be, they can't always cover every eventuality. Sometimes there is an intention for something to happen, or not, but some phrasing would mean something else - yet the intention is still applied.

That word and is there for a reason don't you think?

the appropriate office where the claimant would be expected to make a claim was closed and alternative arrangements were not available

Surely the inclusion of "and no alternative arrangements" must mean there were occasions when alternative arrangements would be appropriate. Logically that would be on days such as Monday to Friday when it would be appropriate to have an alternative arrangement because that's when offices are normally open.

If it simply meant when an office was closed then it need only say when an office was closed wouldn't it? There would be no need of the rest.

How about this - and I don't mean to be funny - but what if you worked on a Sunday and arrived at the office on a Monday evening at 9.00 to claim and found the office closed.

If you went back on Tuesday and asked for your claim to run from Monday on the basis "the office was closed" when you went, do you think it would work or it would fail because it's normal for it to be closed at 9.00 at night?

Tell you what I think....This is just a case of the week traditionally runs Monday to Sunday and if you finish work on a Friday then you have worked for that week; Monday through Sunday. So the change that you see takes effect from the Monday and that's the day your claim runs from.

As far as I know, that's the way it's always been, even back in the 70s with unemployment benefit under different rules but the same underlying principles.

dookar

epitome wrote: »

The paragraph is saying that the prescribed time for claiming benefit (for JSA the prescribed time is the day of the start of the claim i.e. one day) can be extended. i.e. by extending the precribed time you are giving people a longer window in which to claim JSA. So if someone wants to claim from Saturday their prescribed time can be extended to 3, 4 or 5 days to allow for weekends or weekends & bank holidays. What I was saying is that as the paragraph is talking about "an extended period" it is logical to refer to the word "earlier" as "earlier within that period" IMHO.

It would be penalised because he wanted to claim from Saturday and found that he was not allowed to just because the offices were closed that's not his fault, it is out of his control.

No, you're making an assumption. The law says could not reasonable have made the claim earlier - there is no caveat at all

epitome wrote: »

You may

Ta, done

missapril75

Some of these discussions are really civilised.
:T

epitome

As I said earlier, as there is no mention of a specific period for 'earlier' and I disagree with your view, the only way to find out is to go to court. I wouldn't have much faith in a tribunal but you never know they might agree with me.

Thanks,

epitome

missapril75 wrote: »

I appreciate that, but I think it's a "given" because they all mean something outside of the norm.

It's not routine is it? There has to be "good cause." By it's very nature, good cause is something exceptional otherwise it wouldn't be a separate consideration.

I'm not so sure they do all mean "something outside the norm", they are just a list of events that may stop you from claiming, some of them include routine events like lines closed offices closed.

I think you are expecting perfection where it doesn't always happen. As expert as some people may be, they can't always cover every eventuality. Sometimes there is an intention for something to happen, or not, but some phrasing would mean something else - yet the intention is still applied.

Exactly, the intention is applied, and where there is a dispute of intention someone has to decide who is right.

That word and is there for a reason don't you think?

Surely the inclusion of "and no alternative arrangements" must mean there were occasions when alternative arrangements would be appropriate. Logically that would be on days such as Monday to Friday when it would be appropriate to have an alternative arrangement because that's when offices are normally open.

Absolutely, if the office is closed for redecoration there would be an alternative method within office hours - the phone for example, a notice in the window explaining where the office has "moved" to. But on the weekends there would be no alternative so the condition has been met.

If it simply meant when an office was closed then it need only say when an office was closed wouldn't it? There would be no need of the rest.

But it doesn't simply mean that, it means when the office is closed and there is no alternative.

How about this - and I don't mean to be funny - but what if you worked on a Sunday and arrived at the office on a Monday evening at 9.00 to claim and found the office closed.

If you went back on Tuesday and asked for your claim to run from Monday on the basis "the office was closed" when you went, do you think it would work or it would fail because it's normal for it to be closed at 9.00 at night?

It's a good question, but I think that as the office was open for many hours on the Monday it would be reasonable to have expected the claimant to have made the claim whilst the office was open on the day that he wants to claim from i.e. the Monday, i.e. he "should have claimed earlier". He can't do that on a weekend day.

Tell you what I think....This is just a case of the week traditionally runs Monday to Sunday and if you finish work on a Friday then you have worked for that week; Monday through Sunday. So the change that you see takes effect from the Monday and that's the day your claim runs from.

As far as I know, that's the way it's always been, even back in the 70s with unemployment benefit under different rules but the same underlying principles.

But you get paid up till and including the Friday, and not beyond. Saturdays and Sundays are not 'paid days" not even for salaried staff as has been proven by test cases over strike pay.

dookar

epitome wrote: »

As I said earlier, as there is no mention of a specific period for 'earlier'

That's precisely the point, and I can imagine the views of a comissioner or whatever they are called these days

'and so it must be considered in its everyday meaning, that is a time before the date on which the claim was made'

epitome

It should not be considered in its everyday meaning when there is a context which puts it into the period being claimed for.


Cheers all.