text size
–
+
Print icon

81. Getting too many food stamps because of a mistake the household made (“inadvertent household errors”)

To get back an overissuance that a person in the household caused by accident, the food stamp office can reduce the household’s monthly food stamps by up to 10%. [MPP § 63-801.736; 7 C.F.R. § 273.18(g)(1)(iii).]  If the household is getting less than $100 a month in food stamps, the food stamp office will reduce the food stamps by $10 a month. [Id.]

The food stamp office must send a notice/demand letter before it can reduce the household’s food stamps. [7 C.F.R. § 273.18(e)(3)(iii); MPP § 63-801.431,801 .732.]

California’s policy is to not compromise overissuances, except for agency errors where allotment began on or after March 1, 2000. [MPP § 63-801.222.] California forgives the balance of an agency error overissuance at the end of the three-year collection period. (See the section of this guide about getting too many food stamps because of an agency error for related information.) That said, even in the absence of a compromise of an overissuance caused by inadvertent household error, recipients are not required to agree to a reduction or repayment of the overpaid benefits. [ACIN I-22-97.]

The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) has national responsibility for the Food Stamp Program, and has authority to settle and adjust any food stamp overissuance claim. [7 U.S.C. § 2022(a)(1).]  By regulation, the Secretary of Agriculture has delegated this authority to the state food stamp agencies. [7 C.F.R. § 271.4(b).]

The food stamp office can ask the household to let it cut the household’s food stamps by more than ten percent or $10. The household does not have to agree to this. [See ACIN I-22-97 (summarizing the food stamp court order case Aktar v. Anderson).

The household has the right to ask for a fair hearing on the overissuance or the action to reduce the food stamps. To better understand current California practice, advocates should familiarize themselves with “Compromising Administrative Overpayments – Lomeli v. Saenz Court Case,” ACL 00-59 (August 28, 2000); “Court Case Questions and Answers,” ACL 00-87 (December 28, 2000).