I'm wading through the consolidated HB regs and at first sight it looks to me as if they have put the new overpayment regs, due to come into effect in April, in the consolidated regs due to come in in March.

This would bring the new regs into force earlier than originally proposed. Is this right or have I missed something?

They are not listed in those mentioned in U3/2005 but I wouldn't be surprised.

further to philad's message ... HB/CTB Urgent Bulletin U3/2006 is available from the rightsnet news story ...

Consolidation of existing housing benefit and council tax benefit legislation New HB guidance

I've now worked out I was wrong- the regs don't include the new op rules. Its just that by the time I got to reg 100 after wading through the changes I had serious brain fog.

new hb guidance out today (A4/2006) on the new overpayment regs .... see righstnet news @

Housing benefit overpayments: New DWP guidance

the dwp has now published two 'quick reference tables' that show the former regulation and Schedule numbers against the new ones ... available via the rightsnet news story @

Consolidation of existing housing benefit and council tax benefit legislation: New HB guidance

and directly @

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/housingbenefit/news/newsletter/bulletins/2006/quick-ref-hb-regs-u3.xls
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/housingbenefit/news/newsletter/bulletins/2006/quick-ref-ctb-regs1-u3.xls

I'm surprised that there hasn't been more discussion as to the effects of the changes to the OP regs.

It looks to me as though a L/L might always be able escape being a target for recovery by stating that they did not fail to report a material fact.

In all cases the claimant will be a target for recovery and in most cases the L/L will escape being a target because of the ignorance they can claim.

Perhaps that is what was intended but it strikes me as being a very strange effect given the advice in para 23 of A4/2003.

There is a very big difference between the position as it now stands and the position as it will be from april. The regs now prescribe who the target for recovery will be, there will be no discretion unless both the claimant and landlord can be imputed with the same failure.

This must be some of the most feeble guidance ever, with most of it dealing with some fairly minor points. This IS a big change and its very odd that the DWP is saying so little about it.

Not sure I understand why Julian is surprised that a landlord who did not cause or contribute to an overpayment should escape being a recovery target. It will be a big change for some LAs but not others. Quite a few LAs already accept it is unreasonable to recover from the L/L unless they knew or ought to have known about the cause of an O/P.

That wasn't the point I was making.

The new regs require that the target for recovery failed to report or misrepresent a material fact.

Gone are the could have known/ ought to have known days.

The LA will have to show that a Landlord actually knew that the change occured and that they failed to report it, before they become a target for recovery, the burden of proof is not on the L/L to show that they didn't know.

In all change of address cases the claimant will know and so will always be a target.

In many cases the L/L will also know of the change but fail to report it, Can anyone tell me where I can buy ones of those whatdoyoumackallits, that will tell me beyond doubt when a L/L actually knew but failed to tell the LA.

If your happy for the burden of OP's to fall on the claimant in the majority of cases irrespective of what the policy intention was/is I'd be even more surprised.

Actually, I am happy if the target for recovery falls on the claimant and not the landlord. The only advantage for targeting the landlord is to the L/A. It's an illusion to think the claimant gets any advantage by recovery from the landlord.

Althogh I strongly believe the O/P rules are quite unfair, by the time of recovery (after any disputes) - the claimant will have the debt in all cases whether anybody likes it or not.

The only question in the issue of targeting is whether the claimant directly owes it to the landlord or to the LA. So the claimant is in debt either way.

The reason I am happier for that debt to be to the LA and not the landlord is because I know that the consequence of owing the landlord is to make the chances of the claimant becoming homeles significantly greater. If a claimant owes a significant O/P amount to a landlord on their rent account then any hiccup in rent (and particularly benefit)payments will usually trigger a fairly rapid (often immediate) eviction warrant.

This does not happen if the debt is owed diredtly to the LA.

I have yet to meet a tenant who would prefer the stress and worry of carrying large rent arrears to owing the same money to the LA.

It might be because you work for a particularly good L/L, however not all L/L's are as honest.

The issue here is where there is a change of address (and in many cases and end to rent liability).

In some cases (enough for this to a real issue) L/L's might escape being a target for recovery whilst the Claimant had no liability for the whole of the OP period.

In such cases it would be more than unfortunate were the claimant to be the target for recovery.

Where else does someone get paid for a service they haven't provided with no realistic recourse for either the service user or the person who actually paid it?

If you are talking of cases where a tenancy has ended, but HB continued, then I would fully agree that the L/L has no right to the money because there is no rent liability. The L/L should treat it as money paid in error and if the L/L is dishonest enough to try and keep it the LA should recover via common law means. The claimant should not be troubled in these circumstances.

The problem arises when it is not so clear cut. There are cases where the tenant does a runner and if HB continues - nothing will trigger the L/L to investigate if residency has finished. There is a (rather fanciful) belief by some LA's that L/Ls should check up on their tenants frquently. In fact responsible L/Ls respect their tenant's human right to privacy and will only look into problems when they are alerted to them. Added to that, the L/L has use longwinded procedures to end the tenancy due to the restrictions of housing acts.

So there may be quite a period of an O/P between when tenant left and tenancy was ended. L/Ls can still point out that tenants failiue to disclose wholy caused the O/P. The only point of argument left is whether the L/L "should have known". This should depend on case circumstances but in many of these cases I would still come down on the side that the tenant should bear the debt.