Hi there
Little query and overpayment clawbacks.

At the bottom of the letters we receive from Manchester Benefits Unit, (when they decide to clawback an overpayment), they say that you cannot count this deduction from your tenants housing benefit as rent arrears, and the benefit still counts as paid.

Is this true? If so, how can we claim it back from the tenants? Also should LA's be alowwed to do this as they are just passing the buck to us to chase their debts?

We have always taken people to court if their arrears increase regardless of if part or most of the debt is due to a clawback from the council.

Bit confused!

Any information will be much appreciated!

Although Housing law is not my area, I'm pretty sure the LA are wrong (assuming I've got the right end of the post).

I read your post to mean:

Rent liability: £50.00
HB entitlement: £50.00
HB PAYMENT: £42.00 (due to £8.00 ongoing recovery of prev HB O/P)

Difference: £ 8.00

If the above is correct, the LA are simply wrong. The £8.00 is most certainly rent arrears, payable by the tenant.

As for seeking recovery in this way, the LA are within their rights to do this and recovery is legally deemed to be from the CLAIMANT; not another person (e.g. L/L) receiving the reduced payment. In these circs, the L/L is not a person affected in respect of the recovery of an overpayment . It makes no difference if the O/P was paid to a different person originally.

Hope the above helps.

Regards

Kevin is right - any shortfall between HB payments received and the full rent is the responsibility of the tenant, and is clearly rent arrears.

The authority is probably mixing this sort of recovery method up with recovery of a whole overpayment from the landlord - whether it be by the landlord paying an invoice or by recovery from a schedule of HB payments. Mrs Smith has been overpaid £1000. The landlord sends the authority a cheque for £1,000, and puts a £1000 debit onto Mrs Smith's rent account. The HB Regs ( say that this debt can be regarded as rent arrears, and pursued in the normal way. Many experts consider this to be plain wrong, and that such a debt cannot be rent arrears. Indeed, there is anecdotal evidence taht judges have thrown out possession cases involving such debts.

But no-one, to my knowledge, has taken this any further.