I thought I knew about the new hb overpayment regs from April but now I'm not so sure. I've just been told that hbop's can still be recovered from landlords in any case apart from fraud even though the regs have changed - this is because the SSAA section 75 still permits this and the new regs are at odds with this.

I was under the impression that unless the landlord caused the overpayment most new overpayments not due to changes in address would now be recoverable from the claimant i.e. changes of circs which a landlord could not reasonably know about leading to op's recoverable from the tenant.

I've also just been told that if the target for recovery is changed e.g. from ongoing benefit to invoice the landlord has no right of appeal? I thought the idea of changing the regs was to clarify this but obviously didn't grasp the changes fully. Any clarification would be much appreciated.

See HB/CTB Circular A13/2006 for pre April position and post April guidance....

.........to be found on Toolkit section ..

S75(3)(a) provides that an overpayment is recoverable (except in circumstances which may be prescibed) from the person to whom it was paid.

The Regulations prescribe the circmstances where the overpayment is not recoverable from the payee.

The 2006 overpayments Regulations prescribe the person who failed to nofify a change or misrepresented a fact in the majority of cases classified by LA's as claimant error overpayments.

The recent Tribunal of Commissioners decision CH/4234/2004 severely limits the payees right of appeal if the decision comes under the 2001 Regulations but if the recoverability decison was not properly notified in accordance with the criteria laid down by the Commissioners, the landord could successfully mount an appeal. (see the later decision of Mr Commisioner Mesher CH/3622/2005 allowing the landlords appeal following the Tribunal of Commissioners.)

Almost all LA decisions under the 2001 regulations were not properly notified and in my view if you manage to get the decision invalidated on that ground , although the LA is free to go back and make a new decision, they would find that the 2006 Regs will then apply and you willthen have a very strong defence against it.