FTT versus VT

I wondered if this would happen one day and it has.

Client & partner rented property from (non resident) sons (who owned said property) and claimed (and received) HB. Later, the LA made a decision that the sons were also resident at the address, HB was cancelled and client was notified of a sizeable recoverable overpayment. Client appealed but FTT failed. No SOR was requested (FTT hearing was approx 3 years ago).

Following the FTT the CT section at the LA amended CT liability for the relevant period from client/partner into the names of the sons and billed them accordingly. The sons appealed to a VT on basis they were not resident for the period and should not be treated as liable. VT was heard recently and was successful with VT agreeing the sons were not living at the address. The CT section at the LA has apparently accepted the VT outcome as they have again amended the CT liability from the sons names back to the client/partner’s names for the period in quesion.

My main quesion is what happens about the HB for that period? My clients have since moved and are receiving HB from which the historic overpayment is being recovered. They feel that the LA can’t have it both ways and I tend to agree but how to tackle it? At this stage I’ve written to the LA concerned to suggest they revise the HB overpayment decision in line with the VT decison (if they refuse to do so this will presumably give us fresh appeal rights) but on the other hand, the LA may well argue that the FTT decision is equally as valid as the VT decision (and that neither need take priority over the other).

I’m beginning to go up my own bot with this one and any suggestions/opinions/ideas would be gratefully taken on board.

The DM could supersede the FtT’s decision if there were material facts before the VT that weren’t before the FtT.

Might be difficult with no statement of reasons mind but worth a crack. Any refusal to supersede would carry appeal rights to FtT so it’s effective in reopening the HB question.

Thanks Dan- good points well made.

Anyone else?

The problem with a superseding decision and its attendant appeal rights is that it is only effective from the date on which the application is made if it will be more advantageous than the Tribunal decision it replaces.  Might as well just make a new HB claim - the effect is the same (probably have HB refused but with right of appeal to FtT).

Either way, the best outcome the claimant can hope for is HB from now going forward - the intervening years have gone for good.

The circumstances in which a Tribunal decision is superseded from its original effective date only apply when the resulting decision is less advantageous.  It waddles and quacks like revision but for technical reasons has to be referred to as supersession (LA can only revise its own decisions, not the decision of a Tribunal).  It’s an anti-fraud measure for cases where the claimant wins an appeal and only gets rumbled when the true facts come to light later.

Thanks for that HB Anorak.

In this case the client has since moved to a different address (for which HB is in payment). This issue is mainly around the ongoing recovery of the historic overpayment (relating to the address in question).