Overpayment made to next of kin

mrh2

Hi everyone,

Hope you all well and safe .

I need an advice please .

My father used to get pension credit and AA  before he passed way back in Oct last year . The DWP paid his benefit into my personal bank account . The DWP apparently continued to pay after he passed a way of about 6or 7 weeks.

The DWP contacted me now asking me to  pay back my dad's over payment .

I did not sighn anything at the time of his claim.

I m not in capacity to pay that amount .

Can the DWP take a legal action against me if I don't pay ?

Can they passe me to debit collection agency even though its not me who committed to anything from start ?

Am I obliged to pay back ?

I am really panicking and suffer from depression and anxiety and this has caused me a lot of stress as you could imagine .

Best regards

woodbine

Did you inform them of the death? Did you not realise that it was still being paid? And yes you will have to make arrangements to repay it, did he leave an estate?

mrh2

Did you inform them of the death? Yes,

Did you not realize that it was still being paid? No because it was a n account i opened just for his benefit , hence I don't use it .

And yes you will have to make arrangements to repay it, Why ? I did not sign anything myself

did he leave an estate?No

lisathomas50

@woodbine I have just sent you a pm

OverlyAnxious

You say it was an account that you only used for his benefit, but that you can't pay back the money now? 

Surely the money is still in that account if you don't use it?

mikehughescq

If you made a declaration of the death and can credibly evidence that on balance then you need to do a mandatory reconsideration on that basis to challenge the recoverability. Fairly straight forward really. 

Whether you realised it was still being paid is sort of relevant but not really in this instance. The argument goes that if you made a declaration most reasonable people would keep an eye in whether that had been effective i.e. whether benefits had ceased. The idea being that if you noticed nothing had changed but didn’t query that then the duty to disclose arises all over again. However, 6 or 7 weeks for a change of circumstances in a pandemic is neither here nor there so I suspect if you pursue this it will ultimately be deemed non-recoverable fairly easily. 

mrh2

I did not realize because I checked the account after 2 months and was payment made . I then checked 2 weeks ago , and again no payment was made . I gathered the the payment was stopped but did not check from which date .

I suffer from anxiety and depression as I lost both my dad and wife one after each other , and doing any simple task means a lot to me .

mrh2

mikehughescq said:

If you made a declaration of the death and can credibly evidence that on balance then you need to do a mandatory reconsideration on that basis to challenge the recoverability. Fairly straight forward really. 

Whether you realised it was still being paid is sort of relevant but not really in this instance. The argument goes that if you made a declaration most reasonable people would keep an eye in whether that had been effective i.e. whether benefits had ceased. The idea being that if you noticed nothing had changed but didn’t query that then the duty to disclose arises all over again. However, 6 or 7 weeks for a change of circumstances in a pandemic is neither here nor there so I suspect if you pursue this it will ultimately be deemed non-recoverable fairly easily. 

How can I challenge that , what should my mandatory reconsideration request based on please ?

mikehughescq

Use this form.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/683380/if-you-disagree-with-a-decision-made-by-dwp.PDF

The argument is as simple as I’ve described i.e. you did make a declaration. 

Ross_Scope

I'm sorry to hear about your losses @mrh2.  Hopefully the above advice has been helpful for you.

mrh2

To be honest ,some comment were trying to be judgmental . This the last thing I need really .

Thank you for your kind wards .

woodbine

the link below might help people in a similar position in the future:

https://www.gov.uk/after-a-death/organisations-you-need-to-contact-and-tell-us-once

Ross_Scope

mrh2 said:

To be honest ,some comment were trying to be judgmental . This the last thing I need really .

Thank you for your kind wards .

I'm sorry to read that you feel that way, I'm sure that wasn't the intention of any of our members. 

Please note that if you are concerned by the comment of another user, you can use the "flag" button to report it to the community team.

mrh2

Appropriate reply would be without questioning the person seeking help either directly or indirectly .

The advise should be about my question without querying the my credibility . Not impressed

Nobody seems to consider my mental state despite mentioning it . People still need some more education about depression and anxiety .

I am grateful to everybody s positive input and your kind help and wishes .

Kindest regards

mikehughescq

Pointing out that credibility is a key issue to get the right decision is not the same as actually questioning your credibility. People here are trying to help you with an issue. The comments about being credible are absolutely central. 

So, if you say that you made a disclosure you will need to provide some detail to aid your credibility e.g. most people will remember broadly when and where they disclosed; how they disclosed (in writing; phone; visit etc.) and the gender of the person they disclosed to. That’s the minimum you will need, It would also help if you could show that you have always made previous disclosures as that would then raise the obvious question as why you would not disclose on this occasion and so on.

DWP response always tends to be that no record of contact = no contact, which is simplistic and easy to challenge... provided you are a credible witness to your own case.

mrh2

I did not mean about the disclosure.

i did not mean you or everybody . I said some !

Sandy_123

Hi @mrh2 sorry for your loss, I can't add much to this as Mike has given you the information you need, hopefully you can get it sorted.

mikehughescq

mrh2 said:

I did not mean about the disclosure.

i did not mean you or everybody . I said some !

I’m well aware you were likely not referring to me. I was explaining where all of us were coming from.

mrh2

I am not referring to you, hence I did not need you to explain where you coming from . Many thanks

woodbine

I'm sorry if you thought anyone was being judgemental i'm as certain as I can be that it wasn't anybody's intention, sometimes we have to ask for more details in order to provide the correct assistance. I suppose the simple answer is if the money that was paid into an account you don't use is it still there? if it is you can use it to repay, if it isn't then you need to speak to the DWP for guidance.
Hope that helps?

mikehughescq

You appear to be a relatively new poster. You asked for help and have been advised accordingly. You’ve decided to take issue with something that no-one else has seen and lecture us to boot. May I politely suggest you take a step back. I certainly won’t be adding anything further if that approach persists.

Ross_Scope

Just to reiterate @mrh2 that everyone here wants the best outcome for you, and I apologise if you felt as though anybody was questioning your credibility or judging you.

As mentioned by other members, sometimes it's important to ask questions in order to better understand a person's situation, and use the information gained to provide a better response. Those questions can also provoke somebody to consider the details that are important to their case, and help them to resolve their issue.

I can assure you that no offence was intended, but again I'm sorry that you felt that way.

mikehughescq

Not quite accurate. Direct payments after death are a distinct beast and this isn’t that. This is a case where DWP are indeed trying it on. They can only recover directly from an estate if the recoverability issue wasn’t challenged at the time. The OP is in a position to do that by MR as there was a clear disclosure. Dealt with literally hundreds of these as a community care WRO and didn’t lose one.

mikehughescq

mrh2 said:

Did you inform them of the death? Yes,

Did you not realize that it was still being paid? No because it was a n account i opened just for his benefit , hence I don't use it .

And yes you will have to make arrangements to repay it, Why ? I did not sign anything myself

did he leave an estate?No

I think your key is here. If someone dies and a declarations that is made then there is nothing recoverable provided a challenge is lodged. They’re not reclaiming from an estate, although don’t even start me on that. 

One of DWPs favourite stunts. Declare a recoverable overpayment after death; agree to use their discretion to not recover so people don’t challenge the recoverability and then... magnificently.... go after the money from the estate long after appeal rights have expired i.e. mysteriously decide that they’ve changed their mind about their discretion. Nasty and underhand doesn’t even begin to cover it.

Cher_Scope

Thank you for your insight @mikehughescq and @tomatosoz - it's an interesting issue and one that you are both clearly trying to help the OP with.  Much appreciated.

@mrh2 I hope this discussion helped ease some of your concern and please let us know how you get on.  Also, how you are you coping with your mental health at the moment?  Do you feel like you're getting sufficient support with it?  If we can do anything to support you, just give us a shout.  

woodbine

@tomatosoz good to have you on the forum and read your insight, hope you stick around.

mikehughescq

woodbine said:

@tomatosoz good to have you on the forum and read your insight, hope you stick around.

I disagree. I have made my views very clear on DWP staff, HCPs et al being on claimant forums. Not appropriate and never will be. Never ends well. If they’re current then they need DWP permission even if currently working for a different team within DWP. They have to arguably post under their own name and job title. Few have read the Civil Service Code and realise the implications. If they’re ex then they’re instantly out of date and that insight instantly looks a little sticky. 

Now, imagine if our friend here turns out to still work for DWP. If their advice, which appears to be that there’s no need to challenge, that this will largely go away by itself, is followed, try and imagine how our poster will feel if they follow that and then find out it wasn’t a DPAD but is recoverable under s71 and they’re then outside the time limits for a challenge! Not only will the poster be upset but DWP aren’t going to be impressed either. 

The acid test here is always to imagine what the headline would be. Try “DWP staff advice on forum prevent exercise of appeal rights”. Fully appreciate we’re likely talking hundreds rather than thousands here but... 

I can see how my last post could be read as suggesting this was an issue about recovering from an estate. It was actually just something I was mentioning in passing.

To clarify, several, posts have been wasted in suggested this is a DPAD. It is not. A DPAD occurs where “notification of a person’s death did not arrive in time to stop a payment going into their account.”. 

That is not what happened here. Here, a timely declaration was made but turned out to have been ineffective. This has triggered recovery on the basis of a failure to disclose/misrepresentation as described in our DWP posters own guidance at para. 1.36, which states 

“1.36 Where the overpayment arose because:

• Universal Credit – one of a couple dies
• other benefits – partner dies and there has been a failure to disclose or misrepresentation then an overpayment decision should be made as usual”

So, no confusion at all. As you were. The OP needs to make a challenge via MR. 

It is important to remember that DWP regularly screw these up in a significant number of cases and decide they are DPADs. They have a long history of being hammered at tribunals where the overpayments are deemed non-recoverable and DWP POs, if they bother to turn up, generally given stern lectures about not understanding their own rules and often causing wholly unnecessary distress to the families of the deceased. 

Ross_Scope

I understand your point of view completely @mikehughescq and thank you for sharing your detailed thoughts. 

I know you're expressing your views about DWP workers in general, and not directly at this user specifically, but I just wanted to clarify that they are welcome on the community, so thank you for offering your thoughts and experience too @tomatosoz. 

I hope you have found information in this thread helpful @mrh2, do you have any other questions?

mikehughescq

I think that’s a most unfortunate clarification @Ross_Scope. It puts Scope in a vulnerable position and puts other posters here in a non-safe position despite safety being a supposed prime concern. There is also the unfortunate issue that, as yet, no-one who has posted as from DWP or an assessment provider even seems aware of what they are or are not allowed to do according to the rules of their employer/civil service guidance.

I’m sure all posters will want to know exactly how Scope distinguish between those DWP staff on here with up to date knowledge and those logged in to look for known claimants making statements which prejudice their own benefit claims! Certainly, the moment I retire I would never post on WR issues ever again as the knowledge I possess would be wholly out of date inside a month. Retired staff or ex staff are not a benign presence. They are potentially as dangerous in a different way to current employees of such agencies. 

lisathomas50

To be fair Mike the dwp trawl most online sites to find fraud claims its always happend we are liveing in that type of world  at least this person has disclosed  any one of us could report someone not just DWP

Ross_Scope

Thank you both for your replies Lisa and Mike, however it would be beneficial if this discussion remained focussed on the primary topic of the thread, otherwise I will have to close it.

Discussing the question of who should or shouldn't be posting and advising on the community is not one to be had publicly in this thread, but by all means contact the team.

mikehughescq

I take great offence at having anything posted in bold @ me or indeed anyone. That is not appropriate. The topic has been addressed.

Trying to pretend the presence of DWP staff on a site like this is somehow not absolutely on topic is dreadful. How exactly is it not on topic? The fact they’ve disclosed is neither here nor there @lisathomas50. If they advise someone very specifically that they’ve no need to pursue their right to challenge a decision and the overpayment is then deemed recoverable (and any challenge deemed out of time) then what exactly are Scope going to say to that poster? That poster would have to repay the money unless DWP were persuaded to exercise their discretion to not recover. If DWP decide to recover then... back to the headline I suggested. 

Arguably worse than that happening to a poster here would be Scope knowing it had happened and not stepping in and everyone else seeing that, Do Scope want to retain some credibility as a location for disabled claimants or are they willing to throw it all away on the basis that anyone can sign up and say what they want?

lisathomas50

Sorry @Ross_Scope and sorry Mike 

Ross_Scope

Apologies for the bold part of the message @mikehughescq and @lisathomas50, that wasn't intended. You're right Mike, it would be inappropriate and in this case was an innocent mistake on my part which shouldn't have happened. 

I have corrected the message.

woodbine

lisathomas50 said:

To be fair Mike the dwp trawl most online sites to find fraud claims its always happend we are liveing in that type of world  at least this person has disclosed  any one of us could report someone not just DWP

I'm really unsure how the DWP would gleam much information about anybody on this or most other forums as we are all anonymous and giving out personal info is not allowed.

Mike we disagree on this one I don't think it has any negatives having a recent ex DWP staff member trying to help, who knows they might be spending their time keeping upto date?

@Ross_Scope I think this thread might have run it's course now?

mikehughescq

@woodbine. It’s relatively easy. Facebook is often the starting point. People often list their profile names for things like Twitter there and their Twitter handles often match their user names on sites like this. People often give away info like where they live or only go online at specific times and so on. Coffee lounge here contains masses of personal data people just give away without a moments thought and, most obvious of all, people come on here with “I’ve just had my PIP renewal rejected.” Fairly easy to deduce gender; benefit; often the likely date of posting; location if mentioned in other forums or social media and so on. 

The illusion of anonymity is a fantastic thing but it is just that. An illusion. We know your name. We know your health conditions. We know which benefits you receive. You have posted all that here. Others have posted your name too. I’m struggling to see why you would feel anonymous. You’re anything but. None of us are. You want an even more real world example of that? 

@tomatosoz. The amount of personal info. we did lose unthinkingly is terrifying.

You’re welcome to disagree with me on DWP staff but the reality is that there’s a Civil Service code of practice. There’s permissions which need to be explicitly sought. Never yet seen any of these people confirm they’ve done any of that. When I raise it, it’s generally why they’re out of here faster than they arrived. 

There’s statements made which can’t be verified about whether someone has retired or simply moved roles. How quickly we forget @ilovecats who presented as an ex HCP but then returned to work as an HCP and failed to mention that other than to a small group of people. Morally and ethically you cannot have someone who could be making recommendations or decisions on the cases of people on a forum then posting on that same forum. What we’ve had so far here is 

“I worked for DWP Debt Management at Debt Centre Trafford.”.

”only left the job as I couldn't use access to work as an employee...”

and the definitive 

“Nobody will come after you for this money.”

So, no evidence this person is retired or doesn’t work elsewhere within the DWP and some very clear advice. Can’t say the A2W comment makes any sense either. You don’t get refused A2W because you’re an employee! 

I’d be interested to know what advice you’d give @mrh2 if DWP come after them for the money but they’re outside the 13 months to challenge when DWP do so? If I were in their position I’d be saying :... but someone from the DWP said”. When DWP discover the context for that and Scope discover the rather complex situation they’ve put themselves in the middle of...

I wonder how @mrh2 would feel if they discovered for example that their new best mate telling them to not do anything was actually the person who signed the letter? 

If we agree the DWP are the last people you’d call for accurate advice then why would it become more accurate when written and from someone no longer in post?

I’m afraid I think the idea this sort of thing has no negatives is a tad naive. The attraction of purported “inside knowledge” has an allure and an attraction. I totally understand that. That by itself will never be enough to make it a good idea. That attraction is even greater when people are desperate and expertise is thin on the ground. Scope’s admin of the site in recent weeks has allowed a level of abuse that has thinned that expertise out to the point of it being near non-existent. It’s always interesting to see who steps into such voids but it should never be the DWP or ah time who used to work for them. Far from there being no negatives this potentially puts vulnerable and often naive claimants in a potentially very bad position and I cannot see how it could possibly be ethically or morally justified. To allow such people onto the forum at this specific moment in time looks to me like madness. Faith in the forum is at the lowest I’ve seen it in the short time I’ve been here. This is absolutely not going to be the thing which improves that.

Seen some weird decision making on forums over the years but this takes the biscuit in many respects.

lisathomas50

Mike from my own personal experience they came after the money I did appeal it but I had already paid most of it back they were stopping it out my benefits 

mikehughescq

DPADs do exist @lisathomas50 and they’re often written off as described by @tomatosoz albeit that’s common knowledge and not the rare thing suggested here. However, this doesn’t read like a DPAD. 

I think we’ve done that aspect to death. Bigger question now is when are Scope going to look at this whole area of DWP staff and HCPs within their forums?

lisathomas50

Yes I can see where your comeing from  Mike  

woodbine

I would still disagree, no one knows exactly what benefits I am receiving, no one knows my full name, no one one here knows my address, I don't feel the need to be totally anonymous as I have absolutely nothing to hide. 

lisathomas50

@woodbine I definitely got nothing to hide most of my business had been on this forum lol 😆

mikehughescq

woodbine said:

I would still disagree, no one knows exactly what benefits I am receiving, no one knows my full name, no one one here knows my address, I don't feel the need to be totally anonymous as I have absolutely nothing to hide. 

No one needs to know everything and this isn’t about you or having anything to hide. We’re talking about how DWP and other organisations obtain data you don’t even realise you’ve given away and why their presence here whether active or whatever is at minimum problematic. 

If I go to your profile page on here I instantly learn that you’re likely to be on Facebook as that’s how you learnt of this place. If I do a search of forum posts involving you and actual names we arrive at John very quickly, if I do a reverse Google image search of your profile pic. Well, try it for yourself. We know you’re in a relationship. You have an Alexa so you’re likely to have a gmail account and use Google search and we can see the areas where you reply and the differences between those and the discussions you start. We know you’ve had wins on the postcode lottery. You use Freagle, Gumtree and Hot Deals UK. Not hard to cross check user names on those sites or indeed photos. We know you like well laid out posts and that your own discussions rarely have more than 2 words in the title. 

I can do that inside 5 minutes with none of the tools DWP and others possess. No intent to freak you out. I’m 100% certain you could do similar to me. That’s not my point. 

The number of examples where a DWP presence on here is problematic could fill a book. That person asking whether they need to declare that £10,000 they just won on the lottery. Hmm, you likely just did. And so on ad nauseum really. You’ve had a letter inviting you to an interview under caution. It’s probably just because they’re fishing for evidence but, hang on, you just wrote the whole sorry tale here. 

lisathomas50

Last month Mike it was reported thst some one  had been charged with benefit fraud had been caught  on a video that was posted on Facebook fighting in the street and seen running down the street but was claiming benefits because he was wheel chair bound and was getting pip and  couldn't walk 

Sandy_123

I've heard of lots of cases where face book as been used to catch people out, wether insurance claims or different departments, also police use face book too. I don't personality have anything to hide, they would be bored with mine.

woodbine

Your argument does fall down in places Mike i don't use freegle but am aware it exist same with gumtree, I also dont have a gmail account and my hotdeals account has a totally different user name and no personal details and there are no photos of me on the internet anywhere that i'm aware of ! But i'm not freaked out, although i would be concerned that others might be and that some of what you say may genuinely scare others, me I'll sleep easy tonight.
During assessments for different benefits I have only ever once been asked if i use a computer my answer was "yes doesn't everybody"
Anyway as this is one that could go on and on and on i'm off to bed g'night.

mikehughescq

I think you miss my point again @woodbine. I said “likely” have a gmail account Given the tools, I could answer that definitively but you’ve just answered it for me and in doing so disclosed further personal info. It’s literally that easy to get this stuff. 

I’m of course glad you’re not freaked out as that was not my intent but if others are then perhaps they ought to be. It’s very easy to say how wonderful it would be to have the DWP in a place like this but those same people so easily perturbed are exactly the ones who need to be protected from that presence because of the personal information disclosed with so little insight into the consequences age the obvious ethical/moral issues.

Got a book to finish so good night yourself sir. 

woodbine

@tomatosoz personally I hope you will reconsider your decision as I think your input would be of value, we have lost our best benefits advisor recently and someone like yourself with recent experience of working for the DWP would be great asset.

Whilst Mike has excellent knowledge of the system and I respect him for that I'm sorry if you felt he was having ago at you.

Cher_Scope

Hi everyone, I'm temporarily closing this thread to avoid any escalation over night whilst staff aren't around, and to allow for a review of the thread content.  The team will update the thread when the review is complete.  

Adrian_Scope

Hello @mrh2. I was just wondering how you’re getting on? 

mikehughescq

Disappointed the last post was removed. It made some good points to which I would have happily responded. 

Adrian_Scope

I agree it is a shame, but as explained last night, if a member requests their post(s) removed, we honour that.