APPEAL RIGHTS FOR SUPERSESSION FAILIURES

I am in a bit of a quandary about this and I cannot seem to think through the intricacies of supersession.

As a large landlord, it is our practice to notify all LAs of rent increases in bulk for two reasons - many LAs prefer the information in this format as it is more efficient to amend claims rather than individual notifications and also we can guarantee that notification was in time. It frequently happens the supersessions are done weeks or months after increase dates but since the supersession is backdated all is well. Up to now we have never had a problem with this arrangement.

Unfortunately, we have recently discovered that a large LA has not acted on our notifications and for one reason or another several dozen tenants now have rent arrears (even though we can prove the bulk notification was sent in time). When queried at the assessor level the LA refused to backdate the rent changes. Some cases go back a couple of years.

Is there any action can we take to recover these payments that the tenants were clearly entitled to?

I cannot see how we can appeal that a decision did not happen. In any case the increase will have been superseded later - but not backdated to the correct date (ordinary time limits now long expired).

It also strikes me that even if an appeal could be fashioned, we as landlords would not be able to make the appeal and we would have to fashion individual appeals from each tenant which would be logistically difficult.

Cannot help thinking there is a simple solution to this - one that I should know.

Anybody any ideas please?

I am sure many of my WRO colleagues will respond with the benefit solutions but it seems to me that there is maladministration here on the part of the LA - a complaint with the threat of pursuing the complaint to the Ombudsman should do the trick - the LA should accept that there has been maladministration, they should aim to put everyone in the situation that they would have been but for the maladministration and you can act on behalf of the tenants.

Also I would just contact the Manager of the service -

Hope this helps.

Shabir

My LA has the same arrangement and it works for all concerned so I am not certain why the LA you are talking about does not act upon what you have sent them.

The only possible problems that I can think of are;

1)  The LA might say they never actually received the bulk notifications that you sent.

2)  Depending upon how you sent the updates, the LA might argue that it was not in a form that they accept. (The must accept notification in writing, can accept by telephone if a number advertised and may accept in any other form they agree to). My LA accepts electronic updates from landlords but I know some don’t.

If neither of these apply then I don’t see the LA have any option but to backdate the changes to the date of notification or date of change (whichever is the later)

I letter to the Benefits Manager pointing out that you have evidence the updates were sent and also pointing out that the tenants would be guaranteed to win any appeals but it would just cause a lot of work for the LA in having to deal with hundreds of these appeals might work.

You could threaten to draft a single template appeal letter for the tenants and say you will just get them to sign it, but you would rather work with the LA than cause them lots of unnecesary extra work.

Not certain that the Ombudsman would investigate as they do not normally do this where the tenants have a right of appeal against the decision as in these cases.

Is it all properties in that LA’s area, or just certain individual cases? I know from my experience (both in HB and HA) that rent increase spreadsheets tend to be dealt with in bulk, and it’s so easy to miss a line, or if a claim isn’t in payment on the date they’re inputting the changes, it falls through the net.  You’re in a stronger position if it’s odd ones missed, because they’ve had all the information & it should be a straightforward matter of pointing out their error.

Thanks for your replies and suggestions. I now have the benefit service manager contacts - so I’ll try an informal appraoch first. We will have to see what comes of it.

I’m intrigued by J. Membery’s comments that LAs will accept coc notifications in some forms but not in others. In my simple little mind I have difficulty with that concept. Notifying a coc is a matter of fact - either it is notified or not - i do not see where judgement can creep in.

Even a telephone call can “notify” a change. If the LA want specific information or formats they have wide powers to ask for these (with time limits) but the detail still doesn’t change the fact of notification.

Or is my mind too simple?

derek_S - 18 January 2012 02:50 PM

I’m intrigued by J. Membery’s comments that LAs will accept coc notifications in some forms but not in others. In my simple little mind I have difficulty with that concept. Notifying a coc is a matter of fact - either it is notified or not - i do not see where judgement can creep in.

Even a telephone call can “notify” a change. If the LA want specific information or formats they have wide powers to ask for these (with time limits) but the detail still doesn’t change the fact of notification.

Jeff’s relying on the wording of HBR 88 - he is correct as to what options are available to LAs insofar as the strict letter of the law is stated.  LAs can, theoretically, insist on notifications of changes in circs as being in writing only (subject to some types of changes being expressly provided for in other forms).  However, there are Cmmrs / UTJ decisions where a dim view has been taken of LAs not acting on changes being notified by means other than in writing…

Kevin D - 18 January 2012 03:28 PM

Jeff’s relying on the wording of HBR 88 - he is correct as to what options are available to LAs insofar as the strict letter of the law is stated.  LAs can, theoretically, insist on notifications of changes in circs as being in writing only (subject to some types of changes being expressly provided for in other forms).  However, there are Cmmrs / UTJ decisions where a dim view has been taken of LAs not acting on changes being notified by means other than in writing…

Thanks Kevin - can you give me one or two of the refs for these decisions?