Hi,

Am looking at a case where HB was being paid directly to the landlord as tenant was more than 8 weeks in arrears.

All of a sudden, payment to the landlord stopped. Tenant said he hadn't done anything and he wasn't receiving any HB directly to him.

I contacted the local authority and have finally received a reply. The following is an exerpt from their letter:

"I would like to advise that for the period 23rd March 2009 to 15th June 2009 Housing Benefit payments were made directly to Mr ******. The reason for this is because the payment on 17th April 2009 included an adjustment for a past period. During this period, Housing Benefit was paid directly to Mr ****** at that time. When the adjustment was made to Mr ****** Housing Benefit entitlement, the system reverted back to paying Mr ****** direct."

The payments direct to the tenant have been cashed and he has now admitted to having the payments and having spent them (but sadly not on his rent!)

Now I know that HB cannot be paid again for the period 23rd March to 15th June as it has already been paid correctly for this period (albeit to the wrong payee) but is there any point in asking the local authority for some sort of compensation payment to cover this period or is that going to be fighting a losing battle?

If anyone has any experience of this situation or have any advice / comments etc, they would be much appreciated.

Cheers

John

Mon 24-Aug-09 04:40 PM by stainsby

"When the adjustment was made to Mr ****** Housing Benefit entitlement, the system reverted back to paying Mr ****** direct."

This implies that the payment to the wrong person was an administrative error and that no proper decision had been made to pay the claimant.

That being the case, it is arguable that payment must be made under the terms of the decision in force and the pament to the claimant is an official error HB overpayment that may or may not be recoverable. See CH/765/2008

I agree with Stainsby, in this case the decision had been made to pay the landlord but then payments were made to the claimant in error.

This is different from a situation where the payments were being made to the landlord and then the LA decided to pay the Claimant and then decided to switch payments back to the landlord.

HB can be paid again for the same period in this case.

Thank you both for your replies. I will contact the local authority and see what happens. Watch this space!

Cheers

John

Morning,

I am still waiting for the local authority on this case. I wrote to them at the end of August quoting the relevant commissioners decision. I didn't receive a reply so I contacted them again in October. Again, no reply so I contacted again.

I've now received a reply dated 4th December which advises that:

"I would like to advise you that I have had to seek advice regarding your letter and am still awaiting a response"

So, I'm no further on in trying to get this sorted. Are there any time frameworks that the local authorities should abide by when dealing with this sort of thing or is it a case of being patient and waiting to see?

Cheers

John

John,

Make a formal complaint, referring to possible escalation to Ombudsman.

A couple of other random thoughts have crossed my mind (in no particular order):

1) Did the LA actually formally notify you of its "decision" to change payee? If not, it may well be arguable the LA's purported decision is of no force or effect as a "person affected" (you) has not been notifed - such a principle would be consistent with R v SoS Home Dept & anor ex parte Anufrijeva (2003) UKHL 36 - para 26ish.

2) Would an appeal now be out of time? If so, ask for a written statement of reasons for its "decision". It is mandatory for the LA to provide it when requested. In turn, this reopens up a brand new right of appeal that can be made upto 14 days after the SoR is produced.

Thanks for the advice Kevin.

As landlords we didn't receive any correspondence relating to this. It was only picked up and referred to me when we stopped receiving payments for the tenant in question.

From what I can establish the LA didn't actually make a "decision" to change the payee - they did a backdated adjustment on the tenants HB claim and when they did this their computer system reverted to paying the tenant directly despite their previous decision to pay directly to the landlord.

My argument (which was based on the advice given in earlier posts) was that a formal decision was never made to change the payee.

I'll keep you posted

Cheers

John

I agree with Kevin, make a formal complaint.

I would now not just be asking for the missing HB payments, but also compensation for time and trouble.

There is no excuse for this kind of delay due to "seeking advice". LA's are charged with decision making. They are making quasi judicial decisions, not just administering systems, and carrying out set procedures .

There is something very wrong if they are not capable of making those quasi judicial decisions.

Unless I'm mistaken there is a commissioners decision which says that if a decision has been made to pay the landlord but the council then pays the tenant the money paid is not housing benefit, so the landlord could sue the council for the money that the council had decided to pay them but had not. This is because the money paid to the claimant is not the result of a decision and is therefore not housing benefit

This is different from when the council are asked to pay the landlord but incorrectly decide not to do so, when the landlord's only recompense is to the ombudsman.

In this case it sounds like there was no legitimate decision to pay the claimant because any decision would have to be notified to the landlord as a person affected.

I think you are wrong here CH/0765/2008 held that a payment of HB outside the terms of the decision on the award was still HB but the payment was an official error overpayment.

Where an actual decision is made as to who to pay, but that dedision is subsequently overturned for whatever reason, any money "incorrectly paid" cannot be paid to the "correct" payee for the same period (see R(H)2/08

Back in 1998 we had a similar problem. The main difference was that our tenant had left, so we could not pursue him for the rent owed.

After finding the following information in 'Housing Benefit for Housing Managers' book, I wrote to the LA and was successful in getting them to send us a cheque for £348.62, the amount incorrectly paid to the tenant.

"91/B/2636 - Norwich City Council - Benefit paid to claimant instead of landlord.

The housing benefit office had agreed to pay housing benefit to the landlord but instead paid it to the tenant. The tenant then left and the lardlord was unable to collect the money. The Ombudsman recommended that the housing benefit office make a payment to the landlord equivalent to the housing benefit lost and an additional £250 for time and trouble. In a similar case in Barrow in Furness (00/C/05755) a recommendation of a payment of £500 was made. In 99/B/04581 Southend council were asked to pay £2050. In cases like these the Ombudsman will expect the landlord to do all that they reasonably can to collect the rent owed from the tenant."

I hope this might help.

Thanks to everyone for all your advice and assistance on this one.

The local authority have finally agreed (with prompting from the ombudsman) with the arguments I put forward following the postings here and have agreed to pay the Housing Benefit again for the relevant period.

Couldn't have done this without your advice so thanks and the drinks are on me!

Cheers

John