× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Housing costs  →  Thread

Hb op contrived tenancy

LJF
forum member

Benefits caseworker - Manchester Citizens Advice Bureau

Send message

Total Posts: 143

Joined: 12 July 2010

Housing benefit overpayments due to alleged contrived tenancy. Overpayment since 2014. Where do we stand with regards to recoverability, misrepresentation etc. Has the client misrepresented anything ?

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3117

Joined: 14 July 2014

Not really sure that it is possible to answer that without some details of the case…

ROBBO
forum member

Welfare rights team - Stockport Advice

Send message

Total Posts: 334

Joined: 16 June 2010

Although generally speaking of course you’re not looking at misrepresentation as such, but the issues of official error, did relevant person contribute, and could the relevant person have been expected to realise there was an overpayment.

LJF
forum member

Benefits caseworker - Manchester Citizens Advice Bureau

Send message

Total Posts: 143

Joined: 12 July 2010

If the person has always been open n honest and said the landlord is their daughter. How can the council ask for the money back years down the line ? How could the claimant be expected to know the rules on contrived tenancies ?

ROBBO
forum member

Welfare rights team - Stockport Advice

Send message

Total Posts: 334

Joined: 16 June 2010

I can definitely see the argument - if one decision maker thinks no problem, and the second reaches a different conclusion on the exact same facts, how would this be recoverable…  In fact I’m sure I’ve made the argument myself - unsuccessfully, on that occasion as it turned out.

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3117

Joined: 14 July 2014

As with every HB overpayment, there are so many questions to be addressed and it will all depend on the facts of the case.

Are HB even right that the agreement is contrived/non-commercial/didn’t have an intention to create legal relations? If not, then that is the end of it.

Is it even possible for the decision to be revised/superseded? What ground exists? It is not necessarily open to the LA to arbitrarily change its mind on an issue which it has previously reached a decision on. Is it ignorance of a material fact - in which case, what fact? “Contrivance” is not a fact, its a conclusion, so something more than that is needed.

If there is an overpayment, is it recoverable? It does not need to be the result of misrepresentation by the claimant to be recoverable, but if it is the result of official error to which the claimant did not contribute, it might not be recoverable. Official error may be a consideration if, for example, the claimant did all they could to draw attention to the position at the outset but no-one from the LA took the hint and asked about it.