we are a housing society and receive payments of HB direct from the local authority. We therefore have responsibilities re informing the local authority if our residents' circumstances change in a way which affects their benefit. I need some guidance on how to deal with this e.g. where a resident has savings which break the capital limitsor begins paid work and we are aware of this. we can inform them as claimants about their responsibility but where do we stand? especially if the claimant does not inform the LA. We would I'm sure have difficulties in our relationship with our clients if we went to the local council with information about their personal finances, but we have to act within the law.Any suggestions gratefully received.

You are right that you are obliged when requested (for purposes of crime detection) to give any details that you record. I seem to remember that in a recent CD the commissioner also ruled that you even have to notify suspicions of fraud, let alone where you have evidence.

Because of this, you need to think very carefully about the practicality and the ethics involved when you give advice to someone who is a tenant of your employer.

I have come up with and got agreement from my employers for:

1) We start from a position that the tenant has a right to confidentiality and privacy.

2) There is a clear conflict of interest about giving money advice at the casework level by an employee of a landlord since the landlord is a priority creditor. We therefore will not advise at the detail level for debt. This does not stop you giving general debt advice and referring onto an independent money advser.

3) One of the principles written into the DPA legislation is that an organisation should only record personal information that is needed to achieve some purpose. We therefore do not ask or record any details of tenants' income or savings. We do not normally record who is living in the property unless someone specifically brings it to our attention ( we normally do not know therefore who sleeps at what address ). As a rule we would only record changes where it affects the tenancy agreement or if the tenant requests it.

This policy means that when we get asked by fraud investigators for any details we hold on our tenants, we can honestly explain that we do not record such information. The only information we can and do give concern the tenancy agreements which we share with housing benefit departments all the time.

So I would advise asking yourselves why you would need to know about income and savings? And for that matter why would you need to know about other changes of circumstances?

Derek

I may be wrong so please tell me if I am.

You seem to be saying that you only need to disclose information that you have recorded, and for DPA you only record information needed for some purpose. You only record other information, such as a change of circs relevant to HB/CTB entitlement if disclosed to you.

Isn't that the purpose of the original question - what do you do in such circumstances where that other information is disclosed to you?

In the course of day to day work dealing with rent arrears, estate and void management issues, benefits advice, housing officers, estate managers and benefits advisers do receive information about changes in circumstances, both that would have a negative and a positive impact on the claimants HB/CTB. It's unavoidable, regardless of whether it's recorded or not.

Where we bocome aware of a change that would have a negative impact I think the reasonable course of action would be to advise the tenant to inform the LA, but also to advise the tenant that we may have to if they don't - and explain that there could be repurcussions for any future overpayment of benefit, and what the landlord's responsibilties are. (The cumulative effect could be that tenants will not tell us of relevant changes). In our notification to the LA we don't need to specify the detail of the change in circs, but should say we believe entitlement to HB would alter.

Otherwise couold we not be accused of somehow colluding with a claimant who deliberately withheld information?

If and when LHAs for RSLs come in I think your outlined approach would be much more appropriate, except in the case of vulnerable tenants and those in rent arrears where direct payments are likely to continue.

fib

A little aside...

By also informing the LA of changes in circs taht have a negative impact on HB claims, Landlords become 'exempt' from ANY overpayment recovery action, as you will become a 'blameless landlord' for the purposes of HB reg 101 (1) (b) !!! You will not be liabile to re-pay ANY O/P if...

"the landlord has notified the relevant authority or the Secretary of State in writing that he suspects that there has been an overpayment"...

I am surprised at how few HA's are aware of this, when they make appeals and in over three years of dealing with HB appeals as a decision-maker, I have yet to see a landlord appeal using this reg, even where they have informed the LA of changes in circs...

Fib,

Yes we get information disclosed to us. If we know its a change of circumstances we would ask if the claimant had disclosed it yet and if not advise them to do so. Only the HB assessor (with the recorded claimant's records) will know if and how this would affect HB.

Isolated bits of information about a tenant's circumstances do not constitute a change of circumstance. To know it is a change would need knowledge of what it was before. I do not know how you can do this unless you keep records of your tenants finances.

You say you advise tenants to notify all changes of circumstances. So do I. I will even help them do it if they want me to. But then you say that you tell them if they don't - you will. How would you know if they have or they have not? Our local LA's would (correctly) refuse to talk to us about a claimants personal circumstances. They only tell us if and how much they are going to pay to us.
What about all the circumstances you do not know about? How can you judge your tenants if you do not know all the facts? Do you keep them under surveilance?

I think we have a totally different approach to landlord/tenant/benefit relationships. If you want to take responsibility for your tenant's benefit claims, its up to you. I can only say it is a brave thing to do.

We do NOT take any responsibility for tenants benefit claims. It is their right and choice if and whether to claim and it is their responsibility to follow the obligations inherent in receiving HB. Where HB is paid to us directly it is still the tenant's benefit. We accept some responsibility to notify changes that we know will affect benefit but the only ones that we usually know about concern tenancy changes.

If benefit payments fall or stop we make sure the tenant either pays the rent or challenges the benefit decision (with our help if needed) It still remains their claim.

Not really sure how anything in this approach could be interpreted as collusion.

As for reg 101 (1) (b) - we are aware of it and we would use it if we ever had the information to do it. Any landlord who knowingly receives benefit when they know the claimant is not entitled deserves all they get. The point is we usually do not know something is wrong at all until benefit stops so this reg is not much practical use to us.

I don't have a copy of the DPA handy, but I'd be very surprised if a L/L was prevented from undertaking a legal obligation by the DPA.

However, I do have a suggestion on how to approach such a situation. Howabout writing to the clmt, explaining that you have a legal duty to inform the LA of the change in circs. Offer the clmt an opportunity to inform the LA - a month? Advise that you will then inform the LA because you are required to.

Not a nice situation, but I don't have a better idea at this time.

Regards

There is nothing wrong with that, if you are wanting to assumre some resposibility for your tenant's claim.

Equally there is nothing wrong in leaving it to the tenants responsibility, particularly if you try not to pry into tenant's personal and private life. It will be rare for there to be any need for the L/L to notify a change - other than tenancy ones.

I suppose its a question of whether you want to police tenants housing benefit claims or not.

It seems to me that the key thing is that a landlord publicises their policy widely to their tenants. Firstly this gives the tenant the chance to not tell the landlord if they do not want to, secondly it means that if you decide to report something the tenant knows that you are going to do it and finally, there is less chance of a feeling of betrayal if you shop the tenant.

However quite a number of my clients have obtained legal opinion about when they must report a change and the opinions seem to be along the lines that you only have to report a change which you have business to know about- e.g. a change in the household or ones that you are officially notified of.

I share Derek's view that to start getting involved in the personal affairs of a tenant, other than in supported accommodation, is going a bit far down the getting more heavily involved in a tenant's affairs than I would like

I understand the reluctance to get involved, but the L/L has a legal duty to inform the LA.

There is a CD - probably more than one - (the reference of the case I have in mind escapes me at the moment) where a Commissioner found that even where a clmt thought a change would not affect his benefit, it was not his decision. It was the clmt's duty (in the case in question) to inform the LA of the change and it was then up to the LA to make the decision as to what effect, if any, that change had on entitlement. I don't see any difference in the position of the L/L in this regard.

I know that if the LA doesn't know the L/L knew, then how does the LA ever know of the L/L knowledge? But, perhaps, this is one reason why HBR 101 allows recovery from EITHER party.

Regards
Kevin D

Derek

far from wanting to Police Hb claims - who would have the time and resources to do this anyway? - I'd rather take your sort of stance, emphasising the personal responsibility of the claimant. However, historically, this stance has been muddied by my employer's pursuit of direct payments of HB as a steady income stream.

The down sides of this are that the LA expects overpayments to be paid by us except where there is fraud or some other mitigating circumstances. As a consequence, there is a real stake in making sure the LA is notified to minimise the impact of any overpayment.

There are occasions where we become aware of changes that will clearly affect HB. MOstly this is as a result of rent arrears actions, where we are talking to tenants about their financial circumstances in relation to their ability to pay. You don't need to be an assessor to know that some circumstances will affect HB, although you might need to be one to know the extent of the effect.

That said, the example in the original question was really quite clear cut - capital savings above the limit. Regardless of whether we have a policy or not of keeping such information, if we become aware of it and we do nothing ( and the claimant does not inform the LA) then we are contributing to an overpayment which may be greater if the claimant does not inform the LA.