Have a client (IS and therefore full HB) who signed tenancy for a Housing Association House in June 2004, notified HB the day after but HB in error continued to pay private LL resulting in 6-8 weeks overpayment to private LL and underpayment to Housing Association. HB are seeking to recover from private LL but refusing to reimburse client who is now threatened with possession proceedings.

Checked the books and have the following queries:

1. Is it an overpayment to client at all and if not can they refuse to pay client his entitlement
2. If it is an overpayment can we challenge their refusal to reimburse client and if so how quickly, am concerned about going through revision procedure and court hearing in 4 weeks?

Thanks
Caroline

It is an overpayment to the client, but due to official error it should not be recoverable (based on the circumstances you have described).

On what grounds are the LA refusing to pay benefit for the HA address?
Again - on the circumstances you describe the tenant is entitled to benefit providing all other conditions of entitlement are met.

Cheers, they are refusing to pay benefit until they have recovered from the private landlord, client on IS and has been for years
Does this take it any further?
Thanks
Caroline

On second thoghts, it ISN'T an overpayment to the claimant because the the LA was notified of the change of address. Cannot see how claimant can hold any responsibility for the LA continuing to pay the private LL when the LA knew benefit not payable for that address.

There is no power I am aware of for an LA to seek recovery of an O/P from one party and keep another party waiting for payments they are entitled to. This LA appears to be grossly out of order. It is approaching JR level of being unreasonable. As a practical measure I would ask for clear written decisions on why the benefit to the HA is not being paid - and what regulations that is based on. When you have the clear decisions - put an appeal in.

To flesh out what Derek has started....

By June 2004, benefit periods had been abolished. Therefore, a change of address was simply a change of circs. Any benefit paid for the period in dispute can only have been overpaid if the "old" rent was higher than the new rent. The issue of any overpayment is not address specific - it is entitlement specific.

Even if, for some weird reason, there is/was no "claim" for the period in question, the LA still have to take into account underlying entitlement.

Assuming there is not more to this case, the LA has no legal basis for treating the "old" address as being overpaid and then refusing to pay anything for the "new" address. As stated above, it is simply change of circs.

If not already done, request a statement of reasons (no time limit for this) - specifically request the LA to explain the legal basis of their action. In any case, submit an appeal (hopefully your client is still within time).

Regards

I don't agree with what the LA has done in this case and agree that at the moment there is no legal basis for this action. But see 7(3)of the HB/CTB (General) Amendment Regs 2005.

This sort of thing could legally be happening from April.

Actually 7(3)of the HB/CTB (General) Amendment Regs 2005 refers specifically to payments made direct to the claimant so I do not think this case would be caught by it.

On the broader question, and accepting that this seems to be an extreme case, my view is that the payment made to the former landlord is not an overpayment within reg 98. To be an overpayment, it has to be paid "by way of housing benefit". I would claim that the payment made to the old landlord was not paid as housing benefit. On the face of it if the LA knew tenancy, residency and rent liability had all ceased I find it hard to believe they could say a payment was made by way of housing benefit. A payment in such circumstances appears to be made due to maladministration. The LA can recover from the LL on the basis of common law payment by mistake principles but I cannot see how they can hold a claimant responsible for a payment knowingly made for a rent liability that did not exist.