Client's original home was lost due to rent arrears caused largely by a suspension of HB - that suspension was lifted just after he was evicted and the HB arrears were paid to the ex-landlord!

Client with family is now being accomodated in temporary accomodation by the LA under homelessness legislation. His HB application was accepted but payment was immediately suspended as a fraud investigation continues and the LA are now evicting him from the temporary accomodation due to rent arrears. The investigation into the client's affairs has been ongoing for about a year and he has been interviewed under caution, but no result has been communicated to him. (Because the LA have not refused HB, merely suspended payment after accepting the application, we have been unable to find out about or challenge the underlying reasons for their actions.)

For reasons I will not go into here, the LA may successfully argue that they have met their duty under homelessness legislation. Client will therefore need to find private accommodation and will want to make a new claim for HB.

How do I force the LA not to suspend HB payment again without this time giving proper reasons which can be challenged?

Was the first suspension due to the same fraud investigation or something else? I don't see how, if the suspension was justified at all, it can just be lifted and reimposed at will.

Two things which spring to mind are judicial review and a complaint to the Ombudsman - the threat of either of these might just do the trick.

Clearly I don't know all the facts, but the authority should be made to justify having HB suspended that long and causing such hardship.

The first suspension was while the LA were awaiting answers to some complex queries they had raised regarding client's capital - all part of the same investigation of course, but technically a different reason. We argued that, as the client is on IS, the LA had no right to challenge the client's capital, but the LA have refused to listen to this argument. We have also argued unsuccessfully that the hardship caused by suspension over such a long period is inappropriate given that there has been no decision on fraud.

I can see the need for Judicial Review, but will presumably have to wait for the next HB claim to be suspended, as the lifting of the current one would not prevent eviction.

I agree with Andy. JR or complaint is probably the only way.

I don't understand why you say eviction can't be prevented if the suspension is lifted...?

Benefit should probably not be suspended that long because suspension denies the claimant his statutory right of appeal. Push for the authority to make a decision, one way or another, so your client can appeal.

A complaint would encompass all of the issues around the suspension, such as the inordinate length of suspension, multiple suspensions, etc.; and also the decision of the housing section to initiate eviction proceedings whilst there is a benefit issue outstanding. Guidance to LA's certainly says that council tax proceedings shouldn't begin whilst benefit issues are outstanding, but I'm not sure about rent (the former ODPM website (now communities.gov) had guidance for social landlords, but I can't find it anymore.

Under the circumstances, I would be inclined to suggest that 7 days is a reasonable time for a reply to a complaint, and would follow up immediately. This gets your client to the ombudsman at the earliest opportunity.

You might also consider referring the client to a suitable debt or housing caseworker who might be able to argue for an adjournment on the posession proceedings.

In these circs, you should be able to get the possession proceedings adjourned for a few weeks to give time to sort out the HB claim, without too much difficulty. (I do housing advice as well as welfare rights, and in the Liverpool county court at least, it's not hard to persuade a district judge to adjourn if there is any problem with the tenant's housing benefit claim. They don't ask for a detailed justification, though it helps if you know there's a good chance that the tenant is actually going to be entitled to some housing benefit.)