I am dealing with an alleged overpayment of £40,000 HB from 1997 to 2005.The client had a tenancy from a distant relation - they then fell out badly in 2004 which led to client taking legal action to assert rights of beneficial ownership, which was settled by consent in 2007 - client paid £27,000 to settle claim before court hearing.

The LA originally proceeded on basis that client was an owner and not entitled to HB, or property held in trust between her and landlord - they have now dropped these due to my submissions but will proceed solely on issue of contrivance.

Normally contrivance is used to deny HB at the outset of a claim - any views on how this can be used to raise an overpayment over 8 years in the past?

If the facts have remained the same throughout but the local authority now want to put a different slant on the facts then R(S) 4/86, migh be useful The Commissioner stated that: -

“A distinction must be drawn between facts and inference to be drawn from those facts. Again, if the authority simply changes its mind about how it sees the evidence, the original determination is not open to revision on the grounds of a mistake.

Playing Devil's advocate, the LA could all to simply argue either of the following:

1) official error (therefore, anytime revision)

2) if new (material) facts have come to light, revision based on ignorance of material facts.

But, without seeing the papers, it's very difficult to advise on reg 8/9 issues.