I am a bit stuck with this at the moment. Facts as follws:

• Client lives with mother in her tenancy for which she claims HB.
  
• Mother dies. Client claims HB and paid as person reasonable to treat as liable for rent.
  
• LA go on paying HB to mother also (paid direct to landlord).
  
• LA realise the error and seek recovery from landlord (on basis they should have known o/p). At this stage they have paid twice- once to decesased and once to claimant for the same period.
  
• IF THEY CAN BE PREVENTED FROM RECOVERING THEN CLIENT AS SOLE BENEFICIARY OF ESTATE CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS AND CASH IN THE CREDIT ON HIS MOTHERS' RENT ACCOUNT.
  
• Client appeals the recovery decision.
  

• I cannot see how my client is a "person affected" under Reg 3 of HB/CTB D&A Regs at the present time: what can he bite on to create his right of appeal?
  
• I cannot see how an appointment under Reg 22 will work. My client initiated these proceedings. Reg 22 seems to apply only when the claimant dies when proceedings already started.
  
• I cannot see how an appointment under Reg 71(3) of HB Regs would work either- that only allows an appointment where a person liable to pay rent is unable to act. Clearly his mother is unable to act as she is dead, but I do not see how she is liable to pay rent- her liability ceased when she died- I think.
  

An aside to your query:

I am interested to know what you are intending to argue if you manage to show that your client is a person affected?

Surely the o/p will still be recoverable because the landlord is still a person to whom payment was made and who could reasonably be expected to know that they were being overpaid?

I admit, we could talk about what a "person" is.

A further aside, has your client succeeded to the tenancy? What are his plans?

Hi Emma. I think it clear the landlord is a "person to whom the payment is made".

We are going to argue the landlord did not contribute to the error and could not reasonably have known the payment was an o/p. The landlord might reasonably have assumed that the notification of the payment they got setting out "Mrs X -- amount" was in respect of the son and the HB unit had not properly amended the details. Worth a go anyway. The landlord knew my client had stuck in his own claim.

Not to clear whether he succeeded. I am sure he could have, as was assured tenant (my housing law shaky from that point on....). However, they have in any event given him his own tenancy just down the road so all happy there.

I am sure you know your own buisness Martin!

In that case, going back to your actual question, my understanding of this is that as long as the claim was made before the person died, any further action - review / appeal, can be initiated by someone acting on their behalf.

I think I said as much on a recent thread asking about someone putting a cliam in after some body's death - others may have thought different. You might like to look at this one if you havn't already.

I see the problem, in that reg 21 talks about the death of a party to an appeal. There is no similar paragraph about death of a claimant.

Could it be argued that "in any proceedings" means at any piont in any proceedings, including lodging an appeal against a decision? What about if you want to have a review, or get an initial decision made though, for example?

Perhaps someone else has a different view? Someone must have wanted to lodge an appeal before where the decision in dispute was issued after death.

I think his only way in is as a representative of his mother / the estate.

Unless.... her payemnts are not recovered, they extinguish his liability for rent for the same period, and his payments are recovered. Do not have time to think about this properly now - I am late - so this bit may be rubbish.