We have recently noticed a trend from a Local Authority in the manner in which they are seeking to recover certain overpayments. The Local Authority makes a decision to recover an overpayment from a tenant's ongoing entitlement. The tenant's circumstances changes and they no longer have an entitlement or they are no longer our tenant. The Local Authority subsequently issues an invoice for the outstanding balance that they had not recovered from the tenant.

Am I correct in thinking that they must make a new decision or review their original decision if they seek to now recover any monies from us, thereby giving us the opportunity to challenge their decision?

Help, the figures are quite high!

I think that they do, and I have successfully challenged decisons by both the boroughs that I deal with on that basis.

(I usually quote Lady Justice Hales comments in the Chiltern case for them!)

The fact that they are recovering from your tenant's ongoing entitlement, does not necessarily mean that they are holding your tenant responsible for the overpayment. It could be you, that they are holding responsible, but they are chosing to recover the amount via the ongoing HB.

You need to check 'who' they are holding responsible in the first instance. If it was the tenant, then they are clearly shifting the responsibility onto you. It seems to be a bit naughty to do that for the reason that you state.

However, I would think it is at least good practice to notify you of their change of recovery target at the very least and probable that you should receive a Sch 6 compliant letter at that stage.

I don't think that the last answer makes any sense. The question of from whom recovery is made is quite different from the issue of who is responsible for the overpayment (see the Freeman case). I think that the one thing that the court of appeal decided in the chiltern case that was not overturned by the tribunal of commisioners was that the question of from whom recovery is made is a decision under the regulations and has to be notified. In any case the rights of appeal of the landlord in this case only start from the date that the council decide to recover from them, since they are not a person affected while recovery is being made from ongoing benefit.

My point is 'against who was recovery being made' in the first instance?
Was it the tenant via the prescribed rates of recovery from the ongoing HB (£8.40 etc....) or the landlord, but using the payments due to the landlord in respect of that tenant to recover it?