Decision notification letters

Hi,

Just after a bit of advice about what information should be contained in a decision notification letter regarding an HB claim. Reason for asking is that one local authority, when sending decision notification letters to the landlord, gives the residents name but is refusing to give the address. It’s ok if the resident has an unusual surname but if the resident is a Mr Smith for example, and there is no address provided, it’s very difficult to track down which Mr Smith it relates to.

My line of thinking with this is that by not providing an address, it’s not a valid decision notice.My reasoning for this is that I was under the impression that all decision notices must include enough details for the person affected to check the factual information basis of the decision.

If the payment is paid directly to the landlord, then the landlord is a person affected. Without an address being provided it can prove difficult to ascertain exactly which resident the payment refers to, especially if there are more than one resident with the same surname.

Am I thinking along the right lines with this or have I managed to lose the plot (again!). I can’t find anything specific in the HB Regs that say an address has to be given on decision notices but just wondered if anyone else has come across this before?

Any thoughts/comments/advice, as always greatly appreciated

Cheers

John

Formal complaint time.  There is nothing directly in Sch 9 (working age reference) that requires a claimant’s address to be given.  However, I would argue it is one of those aspects that is inherently presumed in law; the argument being that as there is a provision to notify LLs in direct payment cases, it was intended that sufficient info must by given to enable the recipient of the benefit to be able to identify who the payment is in respect of.  A similar logic was applied on an appeals issue; there didn’t used to be an express provision requiring LAs to send appeals to TTS but a Cmmr found that it was inherent within the process so it must be presumed (R(H) 1/07).

In particular, point out to the LA that unless you are able to identify the clmt / tenant, you are not in a position to know the claimants for whom you would OTHERWISE be under a duty to notify the LA of any changes in circs that might affect entitlement.  I’d be tempted to refer to “Hooper” which makes the point that instructions on notifications must be crystal clear - also see CH/3208/2008.  I wouldn’t hesitate to take this all the way to the Ombudsman and, in the meantime, Tribunal hearings in such cases should be a cakewalk for the LL.

Alternatively, simply refuse to accept further payments for those you are unable to identify until/unless there is an outbreak of common sense at the LA in question.

Thanks Kevin, as always your help is greatly appreciated. Good to know I was thinking along the right lines with this

Cheers

John

Morning,

Just received the following reply from the local authority (which will remain nameless at the moment) and am fuming with their reply. Their letter reads:

“Unfortunately, due to a system issue some of our notification letters were printed out with the incorrect addresses for our claimants. Therefore, a decision was made by our Controls Team to remove the addresses completely, in order to prevent any further confusion.

However, according to benefit regulations we are only obliged to include the following in every notification of a decision:

Schedule 9 (Regulation 90)
Part 1 - we are to sent out decision notices mandatorily
        - they must state that a claimant has the right to a reconsideration upon written request
        - must include appeal rights and every effected person has them

Part 2 - describes we do not need a full breakdown of calculation on a passported claim
Part 3 - states we must include a full calc on a non-passported claim
Part 4 - LANDLORDS Notifications -
      a) state the amount to be paid to the landlord and when inc frequency
      b) landlords duty to notify us of a change of circs
      c) where an overpayment has occured that we inform all parties we are able to recover from

Therefore, the above information shows that there is nothing within the legislation stating that we are obliged to provide a property address. This means that by providing a name and claim number should be sufficient information for you to identify your tenant.”

We’re a big landlord and we often have residents with the same surname (dread to think how many residents we have with the surname Smith). I don’t see how the LA can state that with a name and HB claim number we are able to identify which resident the HB payment relates to.

Any ideas if anything can be done to take this further and try to get the LA to give an address on their notification letters?

Cheers

John

Good morning

Is the letter above in response to a formal complaint ?

Morning,

The letter is in response to a complaint to the housing benefit manager. Now wondering if I should make a formal complaint to the local authority chief executive or if there is another route I should now be taking.

Cheers

John

Definitely follow it through.

Sch 9 (Sch 8 for Pension Credit age claims) also doesn’t expressly require that the claimant’s name is stated.  Argue that such basic info as the name and address is so fundamental, there is an inherent presumption this information is required, irrespective of whether there is an express provision.  Also point out that a LA’s reference number is irrelevant to the LL.

In support of this reasoning, point out that before the introduction of the current Tribunal Rules, there was no express provision requiring appeals to be sent to the Tribunals Service.  However, in R(H ) 1/07, the Cmmr found that sending an appeal to TTS was so fundamental, it must be a presumed requirement.

Further, argue that the refusal of the LA to be reasonable amounts to obstruction and is potentially self-defeating.  Point out that you cannot be expected to provide details of changes of address if the LA won’t identify the address - make it clear you will rely on the LAs failure to provide such info as a defense against any attempt to recover overpayments in such circumstances and that you would fully expect a Tribunal to find for the LL.

I would definitely copy in the LA’s Chief Exec and would make it clear (if true) you will not hesitate to take this to the LGO.

There is of course one potential flaw the LA could pick out.  If, in reality, you can actually work out which payments are for whom, it would rather undermine your position - especially if you haven’t had to contact the LA to clarify any payments you can’t identify.  That’s just a heads up for a possible rebuttal.

Thanks for the advice Kevin, as always much appreciated.

I have several emails from myself and colleagues where we have contacted the local authority to request addresses on claims where we have received decision notification letters which will hopefully support my arguments that an address is essential.

Will write back to the local authority and keep people posted of any developments

Cheers

John

I agree with all of the above post however I would personally address any official complaint to the Chief Exec Office of the LA in the first instance, they generally just pass it to the HB manager in any case and if you get an innapproprite or unreasonable response such as the above then straight to the Ombudsman - should save a bit of time in the long run.

Morning,

Just an update on this one for you. Have now received a reply from the local authority and they are amending their computer system so it now includes an address on the notification letters.

Took a while but got there eventually! Thanks to everyone, particularly Kevin, for the advice and assistance in getting this resolved successfully

Cheers

John

Excellent (and sensible) outcome.  This is the second thing in the past 30 minutes that has made me feel almost positively chipper - that takes some doing at the moment.