The flat was sold in January, HB informed but continued paying old landlord. HB unwilling to recover from old landlord, claiming tenant did not inform HB in time, when there is evidence that he did. HB now paying new landlord direct but HB now trying to find way not to pay at all and claiming that as no tenancy agreement provided, tenant not liable for rent. Tenant inherited from parent and so has assured tenancy - assured notice has been provided as evidence of tenancy, but original (very old) tenancy missing. I have made stage one complaint due to HB's refusal to pay full sums due to new landlord. I have also helped tenant to appeal. I would prefer to go through complaints procedure as I feel HB office are being particularly unhelpful. Just wondering if this should be an appeal or complaint and if this should come from new landlord, as paid direct, or from tenant or both?

Tue 07-Oct-08 04:46 PM by Kevin D

In my view, the LA are correct not to pay HB twice for the same period - but not for the reason(s) they appear to be suggesting.

Once HB has been paid, even if paid to the "wrong" party, it has been paid. There is no provision to pay twice for the same period.

The only redress open to your client / new landlord is to seek compensation from the LA that happens to be equal to the amount of benefit which should have been paid to the correct party. Given the LA's "reluctance" to pursue the previous landlord, I'd be pretty confident of eventual success if this went to an ombudsman.

With regard to the LA's suggestion that no HB is due at all for the initial period on the basis of there being no liability, that is a fully appealable decision - I would strongly advise taking such a course of action. The issue of entitlement is entirely distinct and seperate to the issue of whether or not HB has in any case been paid (whether or not to the wrong party).

Hope this helps.

Thanks for such a quick and helpful reply

why doesn't the local authority want to recover from the old landlord? he must have known he wasn't due any rent on a property he has sold?

The problem is that there has not actually been an overpayment of Benefit.

An overpayment requires that an amount be paid to which was in excess of entitlement. In this case the entitlement did not change and there was therefore no amount paid in excess of entitlement.

The landlord never had an entitlement to benefit (only the claimant does) so you cant argue that any particular landlord received more than their entitlement.

The LA (or the claimant for that matter) can of course seek recovery from the landlord, but as it is not an overpayment of HB the usual recovery rules do not apply.

Previous landlord ignoring all requests to forward payments - my question is should the claimant make an appeal or complaint if HB continue to refuse to pay new landlord from date new landlord took over property? If complaint, can this come from landlord or should it be from claimant? (HB are paying current rent to new landlord - Also claimant has found agreement so issue of liability should now be resolved)

There is no real point in an appeal, there were a couple of recent coms decisions where it was clearly found that an LA cannot pay twice for the same period where payment was made to the wrong person.

Complaint and Ombudsman route is more likely to succeed.

I agree with Jeff.

In law, a decision about whom benefit is payable to is appealable. But, even if you were to win the appeal, it has no practical effect (as benefit has already been paid).

The CDs Jeff refers to are:

CH/2912/2007
CH/0180/2006 & R(H) 2/08 (linked cases).

Thanks for for all the advice