Client received a notice from HB department - headed in red block capitals underlined. - 'FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY PLEASE DO NOT TAKE ANY FURTHER ACTION'

It goes on to inform him that he was 'overpaid housing benefit for a period which was determined as being recoverable from you.'

The amount of the overpayment (£600+) and period (in 2002) are shown, and the cause -'due to a change in your circumstances.'

In bold print it then goes on to say "This overpayment may already have been repaid by you and I confirm, once again, that this letter is for information purposes only."

The letter tells him he can appeal.

jj

Not so much fishy as garbled. Only practical response is to request written reasons for decision and specifically request explanation why no further action should be taken.

Could this involve time limits for recovering debts? If clients start ringing up after recieving these letters they are "acknowleging" that the debt exists. This might make a difference if the local authority tried to sue them for the debt in years to come, as debts usually die after six years. I admit that I am guessing here, but if it was my client I would try making a general enquiry as to why un-named clients would get these letters before deciding whether to identify your specific client.

A colleague of mine has seen a similar letter, relating to an overpayment in 2001-2. He is trying to find out what it is about. It seems completely contradictory to say that you don't need to take any action and, at the same time, say they have a month to appeal the decision. Must admit, I hadn't thought of the implications of admitting the debt and time limits.

until i get further information, i'm thinking that this relates back to a time ( a couple of years) when the benefit service imploded in chaos. the letter implies that an overpayment has been calculated and recovery implemented without informing the client.

he tells me he is paying an amount off rent arrears, because the housing department told him to, (he's a council tenant)which he is not too clear about how they arose.

the letter looks like a standard issue letter and i'm wondering how many have gone out. it looks like the council is taking some sort of corrective action from its own side, and i expect hoping they don't get too many enquiries. they were in such a mess, there can be little confidence in their overpayment calculations (particularly as several thousand claim forms have been bundled into storage without being actioned in any way), which have apparently been summarily recovered.

my client doesn't think he has been overpaid and is getting back to me, but i agree an enquiry is in order - i wondered if anyone here might have an idea what has sparked this off..?

jj

I can't see that Limitation will have anything to do with it. After all why would the LA 'encourage' the claimant not to acknowledge the debt..surely it would be in their interest to get the client to make an ackowledgement. Besides limitation only starts to run on the date a debt becomes due, surely at the earliest this would be the date of overpayment decision? Even if the limitation clock started at the time of the o.p. itself it would still be well within the 6 years.

Never had to argue a recovery case on limitation..does the Limitation Act even apply to benefit overpayments? I suspect it would only be an issue under a CPR part 8 application when the DWP seek to enforce through the county court. Oh dear, I feel the need to get a book out....better go and make a cup of coffee and hope the urge goes away.

My understanding was that the clock was reset each time a debt was acknowledged. I can remember it was once an issue at CABx, because a lot of people had walked away from mortgage debts and about five years later were contacted by debt collection agencies.
I don't think that it would apply unless the creditor was going to go to court, but if they have a lot of overpayments they might think that court action could be appropriate for some of the debts.

The Limitation Act has no application as to whether an overpayment is recoverable. For example, there is no time limit to institute recovery proceedings from the date of the failure to disclose or misrepresentation.

However, once the overpayment has finally been determined then the clock starts to run. See R(SB) 5/91.

I'm no expert at all on this but might it be related to the local authority housing benefit subsidy? That is, unless they have officially classified an overpayment of HB as such and taken appropriate action to notify a claimant, they lose subsidy, even if they do not intend to recover the overpayment?

I've no idea whether that is a possibility so quite prepared for anyone to put me right.

Yes, so fishy it smells... very badly!!!

I don't think the letters are being issued for subsidy purposes. Subsidy was 'equalised' across overpayments in 2004, so a change in LA error to Claimant error will not affect subsidy as it used to... I would suggest the letters are being issued for one of two reasons...

1. The LA has old overpayments that have been recovered from claimants, and an external auditor (or possible BFI inspection), has queried O/P recovery action where the claimant has not been properly (or at all?), notified of the o/p. The letters are therefore being issued to comply with HB reg 77 and Schedule 6.

2. The LA is trawling it’s outstanding O/P's, issuing decision letters in preparation for recovery action at some future date.

Both of the above have some quite 'interesting' implications...

If one is correct, then chances are the claimant was never notified of the O/P, so had no way of checking if it was correct, or of appealing against the decision as to whether there is an O/P, and if so whether it was recoverable in the amount claimed.

If two is correct (and I suspect 2 rather than 1 to be the real reason for the issuing of the letters), then the letters are clearly not for information only!!!

Whichever is correct, or indeed if it something else I haven’t thought of, the letters will not withstand a Haringey v Awaritefe challenge, the letters clearly prejudice the claimant's rights to appeal etc. that they can not stand... It is arguable the letters are not just defective, but they are of no effect!!!

As a starting point, I would at least 'stop the appeals clock' by having sending to the LA 'blanket' requests for statements of reasons in each case that you find, to see what is really going on!!!

thanks everyone-
yes - i suspect it's actually scenario 1 - the letter implies recovery has already been implemented, if not completed.

a bunch of unlawful overpayment recoveries - with very unsafe o/p calculations? surely not!

i'll let you know what i discover...

jj

Letters also seem defective as "change of circumstances" is not a specific enough reason.

I don't think this reason renders the notification defective, but I would suggest they send it back and request that they cannot realistically be expected to know whether the overpayment is correct based on insufficient information provided. Especially with the age of the overpayment.

i'm waiting for a reply at the moment. my client has a pretty good memory of events, and his changes in circumstances, at least in the first and largest o/p were from work/low income to IB/IS, so it's very doubtful that the o/p is accurate, but it's a good point - i hadn't thought of that...

i'm more bugged about the high probability of the LA's records being unreliable. the LA knows its HB records during that period are unreliable, and i suspect if there are appeals, they will be in some difficulty to substantiate their decisions. if this is the reason they discourage further action... let's see...

they appear to have already implemented unlawful recoveries...they may have recovered money which was not owed them in the first place, the late issue of overpayment notices, suggests they may have been picked up on audit...but...

enough speculation...i'll keep you posted...

jj

jj:

I think John B's suggestion to ask for statement(s) of reasons is a cracking idea - especially as there is no time limit for that. I'd be asking all of the following in a letter clearly and boldly marked "Without Prejudice":

1) confirmation of the period(s) of ALLEGED overpayment.
2) confirmation of the amount(s) - both weekly and totals.
3) full details of steps taken to consider underlying entitlement.
4) full details of the HB calculation(s) relating to any reduced (or underlying) ent.
5) the nature of the ALLEGED change(s) that caused the ALLEGED o/p.
6) the source(s) of the information.
7) the date on which the information was FIRST received by the LA.
8) the date on which the LA made its decision based on that information.
9) if significant delay in LA taking action, full reasons why.
10) confirmation of whether the LA considers the o/p to be recoverable.
11) if recoverable, why?
12) if any official error, why recoverable?
13) full reasons as to the choice of target for recovery.
14) the legal basis of the LAs decision .
15) the date on which notification letters were sent, if any.
16) full copies of those notification letters.
17) ALL other facts / details / reasons relevant to the overpayment, both directly and indirectly.

Um, did I miss anything? (er, probably.....)

I don't normally fling offers like this around in public, but if you'd like any assistance (depending on the full circumstances and which LA etc - note; I will not deal with fraud cases), feel free to ask. I can be contacted initially at the following e-mail addy (without the spaces):

k e v i n . p r o @ i c 2 4 . n e t

Regards

appreciated, kevin, thanks very much...

to be continued...

Hi JJ,

Just got a decent reply from the LA regarding this; and it appears they have had to send out notification letters for any HBOP's that have occured over the last few years... round about 40,000 went out i've been told.

The vast majority are for matters which have already been resolved, hence the information purposes bit. Basically unless the amount is still outstanding on HBOP system then its already sorted and the claimants can disregard it(bin!). If they call into the contact centre the operators can check for them to see if it still exist...

If it is outstanding then the usual appeal procedures apply and the operators can contact Appeals dept to send a full exp to claimants.

I have been made aware that the operators have had quite a few calls regarding these letters, i have it on good advice that the operators havent had one(HBOP's) which is currently outstanding!

Regards,

Brad.

Will those 'already sorted' have been lawful without the notification letters? If so, why have they 'had to' send them out.

I am curious as to why they have to send out notification letters now for cases that are mostly resolved, is it the case that the original notification was not compliant/existant?

I'm sure that the LA(s) concerned would much rather leave things as they were rather than take an action such as this. Maybe I see conspiracies everywhere, but it is possible that they are taking this action now after CIS 4246/2004 (see this thread http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=106&topic_id=969&mesg_id=969&page=2), and hoping that any subsequent appeals following notification will fail?????

We have been made aware that the LA is changing(closing down) from their existing benefits system and implementing a new one sometime near the start of Oct. As an RSL partner we can only presume that the LA is deleting a backlog of unresolved cases in order to ease the change over to the new system. I have received some (5 to my knowledge) of these HBOP letters for our association which JJ is talking about and nothing has come of them.

thanks brad. that's very interesting.

40,000 overpayment recoveries that have not been properly notified, calculated on unreliable records, and recovered without giving the claimant the opportunity to challenge it, and the LA considers issues resolved if the recovery is completed before they delete their records. i don't think so...

thanks everyone for the help so far. it's all been very helpful and appreciated. this one has me so wound up i've lost all power of punctuation!

vn - are you at william sutton trust in birmingham, or another part of the country?

no reply yet from the LA. brad's info is deeply worrying...

my client went to the neighbourhood office for further info - i've had a message that he is due for a refund, and the payments he is making for council tax arrears no longer have to be made. will be getting a blow by blow account shortly...

have another client now who has been disputing alleged rent arrears for 3 years, and banging his head against a brick wall with it, despite going to advice agencies and his MP. I'm waiting for him to bring me his correspondence. he tells me the LA took him to court for rent arrears, as well as deducting £500 from a relocation grant of some sort. appeal lodged...

jj