Just seen an elderly couple... The tenancy is in his name only.

They applied for HB, however, it has recently come to light that they did not declare one of his occupational pension (£102 per week)... This has resulted an a £10k+ overpayment.

The tenancy is in husbands name only, he is the applicant for the previous HB claims, however the wife did sign the HB forms as the partner..

I am now trying to negotiate with the HB o/p section regarding repayment of this.. what I need to know is..

1. Is the wife in any way legally responsible for this..?
2. I am looking at completing an income & expenditure, if the wife is not legally responsible, then am I right in considering excluding her income..
3. Would it therefore follow, that should he die, she cannot be chased for this debt..

Any views / comments / information would be gratefully received...

As far as I’m aware (and someone will correct me if I’m wrong) there is no such thing as a joint claim for HB. Therefore recovery is from the claimant only and HB cannot chase her.

I don’t think you’d get away with excluding her income from a financial assessment, unless they live completely independent lives, financially speaking.

If he (the claimant) dies then the debt is recoverable from his estate. If she is executor or been granted letters of administration and fails to advertise for creditors, then she may be sued for the loss.

Once the estate has been settled then I don’t think that recovery can be sought from the beneficiaries.

Thanks for the reply...

Thats what I was thinking... We discussed death - happy interview... They have no assets, so no estate etc...

Re - the income - what I was thinking is that she is on high mobility DLA, and I dont think this should be included as income.. so I either need to off-set it on expenses or just disregard it as it is for HB purposes anyway...

Thanks again... D.

I agree. DLA should be offset as expenditure.

Sorry - but I have to disagree with nevip. As far as I can see the authority can recover from a claimant's partner under reg 82(2)(b)

Although there are circumstances where recovery can be made from a partner…

“where sub-paragraphs (a)(i) and (ii) do not apply, the prescribed person from whom it is sought is–
(i) the claimant;
(ii) in a case where a recoverable overpayment is made to a claimant who has one or more partners, the claimant's partner or any of his partners”

In this case where there is a failure to disclose a material fact by the claimant, he is the only target of recovery.

The DLA point is an interesting one, if the overpayment is not being recovered by ongoing entitlement, then strictly speaking, the LA are under no obligation to disregard it when looking at your income and expenditure form. However, most will probably have a policy of disregarding such income when considering debt recovery.

Thanks Derek. I stand corrected. That's rather harsh though isn't it?

You can only recover from a partner if they were partners at the time the overpayment occuered and at the time of recovery. If the claiment passes away then they would not be partners at the time of recovery.
See section from DWP overpayment manual.
Recovery from a partner
4.08 If an HB overpayment has been made to a claimant who has a partner it may be deducted from HB payable or, in the case of a CTB overpayment, CTB allowed to the partner as long as the claimant and partner are members of the same household both at the time the
“Reg 101 (2)(4) HBGR

Carrie:

The guidance quoted appears to be out of date. The law changed in April 2006 - hence the posts by jmembery & Derek_S.

The latitude to recover from partners is now significantly wider.

Kevin

Thanks, being a team of one it is difficult keeping on top of things...

Carrie

Oh dear... not looking good then now is it...

Just to update - there is no HB entitlement now.. over the applicable amount threshold..

And the HB o/p section have gone back to 2001... I have just been informed he didnt retired until 2003.. so there is now this period where i need to see what their income was before retirement... as this MAY have some bearing on the level of the o/p... in that there may have been some entitlement to HB prior to the year he retired..

I am now thinking that it may be better in the hands of a qualified welfare rights adviser rather than a measly debt adviser with not much knowledge in this area...



Thanks for the replies guys...! xxx

Towards the end of this thread there was a short discussion about the change to the rules in April 2006. Is it not the case that it is the HB rules that apply at the time of the overpayment being generated, that count? I seem to recall that CH/1618/2002 supports this view. Most or all of this OP are pre April 2006, so current rules will surely be irrelevant.

Steve