Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number:	R(H)2/08
File Number:	CH 3629 2006
Appellant:
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge E. Jacobs
Date Of Decision:	03/04/2007
Date Added:	10/05/2007
Main Category:	Housing and council tax benefits
Main Subcategory:	other
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Housing benefit – payment to landlord – benefit paid to tenant where duty to pay to landlord – whether possible to pay to landlord for same period – effect of offsetting provisions The claimant had authorised the payment of housing benefit to her landlord under regulation 96(1)(a) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006. In January 2006, at the claimant’s request, the local authority decided to stop payments to the landlord and pay benefit instead into the bank account of a friend of the claimant, but it did not notify the landlord of its decision. In April 2006 the landlord contacted the local authority and the authority accepted that it was required by regulation 95(1)(b) to make payments to the landlord because the claimant was more than eight weeks in arrears with her rent. The authority reinstated direct payments to the landlord. The landlord appealed to an appeal tribunal, arguing that payment should be made to him under regulation 95(1)(b) for the period from January to April. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no power to order a second payment of housing benefit to the landlord. The landlord appealed to the Commissioner. Before the Commissioner it was common ground, on the authority of CH/2986/2005, that: (i) the decision to pay housing benefit to the claimant should have been made on a supersession; (ii) the supersession decision should have been notified to the landlord; (iii) it carried a right of appeal by the landlord; and (iv) it was that decision which was under appeal to the tribunal. This case was heard together with R(H) 1/08, which raised the same issue. Held, dismissing the appeal, that: 1. the absence of any provision for recovery of the payment made in error to the tenant did not prevent a payment being made to the landlord for the same period, since the recovery provisions follow on in their effect from the entitlement provisions, and cannot have any effect by relation back on what payments may be made (paragraph 29); 2. it was possible that entitlement to a retrospective payment to the landlord might arise since a decision on revision or supersession is a decision dealing with all aspects of entitlement (R(I) 9/63 followed) and it would have been open to the local authority or the tribunal to make a retrospective decision on revision that included the payment of the benefit to the landlord (paragraphs 30 to 37); 3. however that result was prevented by regulation 98, which provides that any sum paid in respect of a period covered by a subsequent decision shall be offset against arrears of entitlement under the subsequent decision treated as properly paid on account of them (paragraphs 39 and 40).
Decision(s) to Download:	R(H) 2-08ws.doc