i wonder if anyone can signpost me to the case of

(R v LB Brent ex parte Connery)

which im advised relates to the issue of DWP subsidy for an O/P recovery. im requesting a review of a HB decision to recover from HA when the non reporting of a change of circs by the tenant that led to the O/P could be viewed as fraudulent

many thanks

I dont have a transcript of the case but Brent and Connery is nothing to do with overpayments, it relates to an old Reg 11 case where the judge decided that if the Council were otherwise able to restrict the eligible rent, it could take its own financial position into accout when exercising its discretion whether or not to restrict.

The case is only relevant to overpayments in the sense that the Council will be able to take its own finances into account when deciding how to recover an overpayment.

Its relvant to the issue of the target for recovery to me seems quite limited.

Did the HA notify the Council in writing that it suspected the alleged fraud? If it did then the overpayment is not recoverable from the HA

no the HA didnt notify HB of a suspected fraud,as they were unaware any change in tnenats circs had occured until the O/P notification was received. but reading through the statement of reasons and examining the case, i was considering whether the tenant's non disclosure of a change in circs for a lengthy period may be considered as fraudulent.

there was a mention of brent / connery within the appeal makers decision notes, so i thought i beetter investigate its relevance to the case im looking at.

thanx