NHS Dental Fine

POPPYOSCAR

Londonsu wrote: »

No it your responsibility to ensure you have the correct exemption,


http://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/HealthCosts/1558.aspx




When you claim help with NHS dental charges, you are responsible for knowing whether or


not you are entitled and for the declaration you make. If you are not sure you are entitled to


help, you must pay. Ask for a receipt that shows you paid for NHS dental treatment. You may


be able to claim a refund so make sure you keep all receipts (see page 26).


Personally I think its about time the NHS got its act together and started ensuring people who claim entitlement to free treatment or prescriptions have the correct proof

Do not worry I think they have.


My daughter received a letter treating her like a criminal and with a fine, of I think it was £100, for' not paying' for her dental treatment.


She is only 18 and it really upset her as she had paid and always pays her way.


To make it worse the letter arrived on Friday so she could not do anything about it until the Monday and it gave her sleepless nights.


It turned out the dental practice had made a mistake on the information submitted to the NHS.


I understand and appreciate that they have to combat fraud but the letter was accusing and nowhere did it make any reference to the possibility of an error, such as if you have paid please let us know.


To add insult to injury the dental surgery expected my daughter to sort it out herself, but she had the sense to insist they do it and put it all in writing to her, which they did in the end.

missapril75

Scousejoe wrote: »

Missapril, dare I dream !

Unfortunately the link you sent wouldn't open so I couldn't check that, so from what you say there are presumably exceptions ?

It was another poster who gave the link. Here's the relevant part.

Certificates are usually valid for periods of between six months to five years, depending on your circumstances.

So it sounds the norm rather than exception.

I asked if I could pay this recent bill in instalments as they don't take payments for less than £50
But I'm wondering if I should just borrow and pay it ? They are saying it has to be paid by 10th Jan.

Any ideas on how to move forward.

It would seem absolutely vital to ascertain the period of your original certificate.

If you were covered (until whatever date) and then covered again, even though you weren't covered in between 'officially' I believe it could be worth pursuing the "no loss to public funds" angle.

As to paying less than £50 instalments, if you are again covered, that would kind of suggest paying more than £50 would be tricky. They might be happy just to be getting something even if it's not as much as they want.

Scousejoe

It sure would be good to have the certificate as you say, but I cant find the thing anywhere.


Like I say at my old dentist I was asked to produce it, which I did. So one would think that the receptionist has noted somewhere that it was produced as evidence. It seems to me there are real discrepancies in this area. Like some dentists require evidence and others take it for granted.


I'm sure someone will point out that's my responsibility, but if your not even asked, then you tend not to produce.. Like I say it's strange NHS can't locate my H1 application or any record of me having HC2, this is clearly wrong. I did say that I have changed address on numerous occasions, but was told that people are located on their system by name and DOB.


@Missapril


When you say "I believe it could be worth pursuing the "no loss to public funds" angle"


At what stage does one pursue that angle and how ? Could you explain what the "No loss to public funds" means. I've never heard that term.

missapril75

Scousejoe wrote: »

@Missapril
When you say "I believe it could be worth pursuing the "no loss to public funds" angle"

At what stage does one pursue that angle and how ? Could you explain what the "No loss to public funds" means. I've never heard that term.

It's just something that describes a situation where although something was overpaid, had one taken a different course of action something else would have been due instead.

Like continuing to draw JSA having started a job, but that tax credits might have become due.

Or, where a lone parent still gets Income Support when their youngest child reaches the age at which the lone parent should have claimed JSA. It would have been the same rate and same Housing Benefit entitlement despite originally appearing to be an overpayment of both Income Support and HB.

This situation is a little different and I have no idea how the current system would view it but it can be used to reduce an overpayment or mitigate any action.

The thing is, if you reapplied for coverage and got it and your circumstances were the same as when the previous coverage expired, it might be accepted that you would still have been covered had you reapplied, thus you didn't actually get something not due. Hence no real loss to public funds.

This may be viewed not as backdating in the same way someone discovers they could have applied previously but what would have been continuing coverage providing, of course, that you successfully reapplied and were given coverage on the same basis as previously.

See, you've just been told by an employee that they are issued for a year only. That's wrong, according to the website, so if they can err that way how can you be expected to know? It's an argument I have successfully used in an alternative situation.

Whether it worked may depend on when that certificate expired. If it ran out a couple of years ago it may not work. If it expired in the last 12 months they might look upon it more favourably.

I'm guessing that if they can give coverage for as much as 5 years in one go "depending on circumstances" then they probably do it in a stable situation less likely to change than if they do it for 6 months.

If yours was originally given for more than a year then that might strengthen your case.

Maybe they should issue reminders like for TV and driving licences.

What happens if you don't renew a TV licence until 6 months after it ran out? Do they come after you and charge you for the TV you watched in that time? :rotfl:

I'm joking but it is similar.

Darksparkle

missapril75 wrote: »

It's just something that describes a situation where although something was overpaid, had one taken a different course of action something else would have been due instead.

Like continuing to draw JSA having started a job, but that tax credits might have become due.

Or, where a lone parent still gets Income Support when their youngest child reaches the age at which the lone parent should have claimed JSA. It would have been the same rate and same Housing Benefit entitlement despite originally appearing to be an overpayment of both Income Support and HB.

This situation is a little different and I have no idea how the current system would view it but it can be used to reduce an overpayment or mitigate any action.

The thing is, if you reapplied for coverage and got it and your circumstances were the same as when the previous coverage expired, it might be accepted that you would still have been covered had you reapplied, thus you didn't actually get something not due. Hence no real loss to public funds.

This may be viewed not as backdating in the same way someone discovers they could have applied previously but what would have been continuing coverage providing, of course, that you successfully reapplied and were given coverage on the same basis as previously.

See, you've just been told by an employee that they are issued for a year only. That's wrong, according to the website, so if they can err that way how can you be expected to know? It's an argument I have successfully used in an alternative situation.

Whether it worked may depend on when that certificate expired. If it ran out a couple of years ago it may not work. If it expired in the last 12 months they might look upon it more favourably.

I'm guessing that if they can give coverage for as much as 5 years in one go "depending on circumstances" then they probably do it in a stable situation less likely to change than if they do it for 6 months.

If yours was originally given for more than a year then that might strengthen your case.

Maybe they should issue reminders like for TV and driving licences.

What happens if you don't renew a TV licence until 6 months after it ran out? Do they come after you and charge you for the TV you watched in that time? :rotfl:

I'm joking but it is similar.

You do get reminders for driving licenses. I got one last month.

Londonsu

missapril75 wrote: »

It's just something that describes a situation where although something was overpaid, had one taken a different course of action something else would have been due instead.

Like continuing to draw JSA having started a job, but that tax credits might have become due.

Or, where a lone parent still gets Income Support when their youngest child reaches the age at which the lone parent should have claimed JSA. It would have been the same rate and same Housing Benefit entitlement despite originally appearing to be an overpayment of both Income Support and HB.

This situation is a little different and I have no idea how the current system would view it but it can be used to reduce an overpayment or mitigate any action.

The thing is, if you reapplied for coverage and got it and your circumstances were the same as when the previous coverage expired, it might be accepted that you would still have been covered had you reapplied, thus you didn't actually get something not due. Hence no real loss to public funds.

This may be viewed not as backdating in the same way someone discovers they could have applied previously but what would have been continuing coverage providing, of course, that you successfully reapplied and were given coverage on the same basis as previously.

See, you've just been told by an employee that they are issued for a year only. That's wrong, according to the website, so if they can err that way how can you be expected to know? It's an argument I have successfully used in an alternative situation.

Whether it worked may depend on when that certificate expired. If it ran out a couple of years ago it may not work. If it expired in the last 12 months they might look upon it more favourably.

I'm guessing that if they can give coverage for as much as 5 years in one go "depending on circumstances" then they probably do it in a stable situation less likely to change than if they do it for 6 months.

If yours was originally given for more than a year then that might strengthen your case.

Maybe they should issue reminders like for TV and driving licences.

What happens if you don't renew a TV licence until 6 months after it ran out? Do they come after you and charge you for the TV you watched in that time? :rotfl:

I'm joking but it is similar.

Why should the cash strapped NHS waste thousands in sending out reminders to people who have exemption documentation with an expiry date on it, its the claimants responsibility to ensure they have the correct exemption, since 2003 I have had a medical exemption certificate for a medical condition, I am always going to have this condition and will always need the medication. BUT my certificate needs to be renewed every 5 years, no one told me it did I just read the expiry date on the card and worked it out myself and managed (until I turned 60 and therefore no use for it) to renew it every time it was due to expire.


Its called taking responsibility.

missapril75

Darksparkle wrote: »

You do get reminders for driving licenses.

Yes I know. That's why I said Maybe they should issue reminders like for TV and driving licences.

missapril75

Londonsu wrote: »

Why should the cash strapped NHS waste thousands in sending out reminders to people who have exemption documentation with an expiry date on it, its the claimants responsibility to ensure they have the correct exemption, since 2003

Why should the cash strapped government department waste thousands in sending out reminders to people who have driving licences and TV Licences with an expiry date on it, its the viewer/driver responsibility to ensure they have the correct document.

Damn mollycoddled TV viewers and motorists. :rotfl:

Seriously, why are some worthy of reminders and not others?

Londonsu

missapril75 wrote: »

Why should the cash strapped government department waste thousands in sending out reminders to people who have driving licences and TV Licences with an expiry date on it, its the viewer/driver responsibility to ensure they have the correct document.

Damn mollycoddled TV viewers and motorists. :rotfl:

Seriously, why are some worthy of reminders and not others?

Well I have never had a letter reminding me to pay my TV licence and I don't drive, so not sure why but it does not negate the fact that there are term and conditions to getting freebie NHS services, people get used to holding their hands out for these freebies and then seem to find it unfair when asked to actually prove their entitlement.

NYM

Driving Licence renewal is every 10 years. It's an automatically generated reminder. I've never had a reminder for TV Licence...:eek:


phew! they took it in July by DD :T:o