Back in 2009 a relative was in a relationship and their claim was treating them as a couple.

Their partner had several social fund loans and

after they seperated my relative applied for a Debt Relief Order (DRO) poor person's bankruptcy through their local CAB office.

The social fund laons were added to their DRO and confirmed ok by the Official Receiver's department who dealt with the paperwork in 2010.

However, the DWP have been making deductions from their benefit in respect to these old SF loans which is leaving them in financial hardship.

The SF office have said they can review the deductions being made but it will probably take approximately 6-10 weeks to deal with,

by which time the loan will have been repaid, so that's not an option.

Today, I have discovered that the DWP won a court battle over SF loans being added to DRO's

and following that case it was agreed that with effect from 19th March 2012 no one could include any SF loans to a DRO,

but any DRO's prior to that date were to be written off by the DWP.

Therefore, the DWP should NOT be deducting this money from their benefit but I cannot locate the court case

or legislation to which this refers in order to notify the SF loan team that they are in breach of this

and that all deductions should be refunded back to the claimant.

I have searched througth google and gov websites etc but to no avail.

Please can anyone help locate this bit of caselaw or legislation for me?

Many thanks

Shelley

Is this the case you are looking for: http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/insolvency%E2%80%94debt-relief-orders%E2%80%94recovery-benefits-during-moratorium-period

Page not found mr p.

Nuts. The link got mangled and now I find it only visible to "premium" users. Please see attached PDF of the ruling.

Page not found mr p.

That happened to me the first time. Try it again and it works but you have to register with the New Law Journal

I think I have found the actual Supreme Court decision but having read the 17 pages I haven't absorbed the jargon https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2011_0007_Judgment.pdf

Am just wondering whether if the debt was taken out as a couple, and only one took out a DRO, does this not mean DWP can recover from other member of couple?

Thank you Mr.P.

Having re-read the full ruling and it is dated 14th December 2011, heard on 3rd Noveber 2011 I am now trying to understand that if someone had a DRO registered September 2010 which would have been deemed to be completed Sept 2011 that ALL debts recorded on said DRO are written off by the relevant organisations involved? That's how I understand the ruling.

Is this how you would interpret the ruling?

Am just wondering whether if the debt was taken out as a couple, and only one took out a DRO, does this not mean DWP can recover from other member of couple?

Valid point - and yes, usually the DWP will go after the other partner. However, we do not know where they are and cannot ask the question. But the DWP have chosen to chase the person with the DRO anyway. Which according to this article is illegal - http://www.edwardsduthie.com/payne-&-cooper.html

"Following the making of a DRO, there is a moratorium period (usually of one year), during which debts listed in a schedule to the DRO are intended to be frozen. At the end of the moratorium period, the DRO is discharged and the scheduled debts extinguished." That looks pretty cut and dry to me?

sorry, i was getting confused by your OP which kept saying them and their, so thought they might have reconciled

if that is not the case, then as far as i can see they could only recover from your relative, if:

1) it was a fraud debt; or

2)they had objected to the debt being included in the DRO during the moratorium period

[...]I am now trying to understand that if someone had a DRO registered September 2010 which would have been deemed to be completed Sept 2011 that ALL debts recorded on said DRO are written off by the relevant organisations involved?

As I understand the ruling (note: I am not a legal expert), Social Fund loans and DWP benefit payments could be included in a DRO. The Insolvency (Amendment) Rules 2012 came into force on 19 March 2012 which specifically excluded SF/DWP debts from a DRO. On that basis, if a DRO had been completed before March 2012 and a Social Fund loan had been included unchallenged, then the DWP is in error in recovering payments.

That's how I understand it to be Mr P. Thank you.

Suitable letter being drafted to DWP. However, can we claim interest due to their error? I would think so at 8% wouldn't you?

Suitable letter being drafted to DWP. However, can we claim interest due to their error? I would think so at 8% wouldn't you?

Claiming 8% interest on any money repaid due to their error would be quite reasonable. If the DWP persist in making these deductions, perhaps it would be worth contacting your relative's MP and getting pressure applied from a higher level.

Claiming 8% interest on any money repaid due to their error would be quite reasonable. If the DWP persist in making these deductions, perhaps it would be worth contacting your relative's MP and getting pressure applied from a higher level.

Thanks Mr. P thats what I thought I would do and it might just get a speedier response