It may have been thought that, with his success in the case of B, the Secretary of State would have been content with the overpayment recovery powers in section 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. However, recent correspondence between the DWP and CPAG reveals that the DWP thinks it also has powers of recovery under the common law. Stewart Wright explains the correspondence, suggests why the DWP may be wrong and how the issue may be tested in court.
Stewart Wright reports on the recent Tribunal of Commissioners' decision - CSDLA/133/2005 - which considered whether thinking is a bodily function and whether prompting and motivating can count as attention for AA and DLA purposes.
At first blush, it may seem that the ECtHR's decision in Stec has opened up a simple route for successfully applying Hockenjos to all shared cases. Stewart Wright suggests that this is not the case and that such arguments remain difficult.