looking at SI 2005 No. 2904 (see yesterdays 24/10/05 news item "housing Benefit overpayments").

The SI has an amendment to reg 102 which includes the wording

"...the relevant authority may at its discretion deduct from the housing benefit it is paying to the claimant in respect of a benefit week an amount equal to the claimant's weekly entitlement to housing benefit at his new dwelling, and may do so for the number of benefit weeks equal to the number of weeks during which the claimant was overpaid housing benefit."

Am I reading this wrongly (quite possible!!), or does this say that if tenants move into another property and an overpayment is awarded against the paymant on the last property - then it can be recovered by taking all of ongoing benefit until the o/p is recovered?

What happened to the concept of maximums in recovery of ongoing benefit?

I read it in the same way as you do.

I also suspect the intention was to limit this arrangement to overpayments directly caused by the change in address, but I am not yet certain that the way the regs are written achieves this.

Yes I can only read it as being intended to cover O/Ps created due to moving - it's just that I do not understand why.

Cannot understand why there needs to be any reg change to cover the circumstances where O/P created by Hb continuing to be paid to a tenants old address after HB paid at new address.

Can only see two ways this can arise:
1) where reg 5(5) is applied (so there would be no actual O/P), or
2) incompetence by the HB authority in by paying at new address and not stopping payment at old address.

The wording used in the SI:

"(b) a recoverable overpayment of housing benefit is thereafter made direct to him in connection with the dwelling he occupied as his home immediately preceding the date he moved to that dwelling;"

seems to be ambiguous to me. It may have been intended to cover an O/P created on dates immediately prior to the move but it can also be read as any O/P during the tenancy immediately prior to the move.

The danger is of course if a substantial old overpayment is recovered by taking up to all benefit at a new address for an indefinate period) - any IS claimant will be unable to afford rent and will surely be evicted.

I would think that the key word is "thereafter" which seems to me to limit the case to a payment made after the move. Notice that this only applies to payments made to the claimant, not to the old landlord.

The DWP have this idea that a payment made to a claimant calculated on the wrong address is an overpayment, even if the claimant has a higher rent at the new address. I think that this is wrong, but if they believe this you can see why they might want to put this clause in.

But what do you think is the purpose and effect of reg 8, which amends regulation 104 (underlying entitlement)to take out a change of address from the underlying entitlement rules?

I'm still as puzzled as ever. Ordinarily, a normal change of residence for a claimant with an existing Hb claim will mean benefit at old address stops and new one starts. Apart from reg 5(5), it takes a major error for two benefits to be paid at same time on same claim.

I have to conclude that the change in this SI is to address some sort of exceptional circumstances - but I cannot work out which.

I know there are some difficulties over differences in actual dates of change of rent liability and moving date. Is this amendment to address this issue?

Or does it address some of the extentions to reg 5.(5) following Cd's during the last year (going into res care etc.)?