Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:	2013 UKUT 232 AAC
Reported Number:
File Number:	CH 2551 2011
Appellant:	Hastings BC
Respondent:	PA & DA Hanlon (HB)
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge M. Rowland
Date Of Decision:	10/05/2013
Date Added:	19/06/2013
Main Category:	Housing and council tax benefits
Main Subcategory:	recovery of overpayments
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Reported as [2014] AACR 4 Housing benefit – recoverability of overpayment from landlord when tenant leaves the dwelling – whether failure to disclose The claimant’s housing benefit was paid direct to his landlords. He left the premises but failed to inform the local authority and housing benefit continued to be paid to the landlords for some 18 months after the claimant had moved. The local authority decided that the overpayment was recoverable from both the landlords and the claimant. The landlords appealed against that decision. The First-tier Tribunal (F-tT) decided it was recoverable only from the claimant as it was satisfied that the landlord was unaware that the claimant had moved. The local authority appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT) against the decision, initially by challenging the F-tT’s findings of fact and subsequently on the grounds that the overpayment was recoverable either under section 75(3)(a) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, because the payment was made to the landlords who did not fall within regulation 82(1) of the Housing Benefit (Persons who have attained the qualifying age for state pension credit) Regulations 2006 and section 75(3)(b) and regulation 82(2) did not apply to a person to whom a housing benefit was paid, or, alternatively, under regulation 82(2), as the landlords contributed to the overpayment by neglecting to make checks to see whether the claimant was still residing in the premises. Held, dismissing the appeal, that: 1. the local authority’s initial grounds of appeal failed to identify an error of law of a type suggested by Brooke LJ in R (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 982 but instead sought to re-argue the factual issues in the case which was inappropriate on an appeal confined to points of law (paragraphs 8 to 13); 2. in the light of R(H) 6/06, regulation 82(2) did apply to persons to whom housing benefit was paid and therefore the introduction of what had become regulation 82(2)(b) had rendered regulation 82(1) of no practical effect, because it was not permissible to read regulation 82(2)(b) as not applying if the overpayment had been made to a landlord and had occurred as a result of a change of dwelling occupied by the claimant as his home (paragraphs 15 to 23); 3. on the F-tT’s findings, there had been no failure by the landlords to disclose a material fact so as to bring them within regulation 82(2)(b) because there was no warrant in regulation 69 of the 2006 Regulations or under the general law for implying a duty to disclose facts of which one was unaware or to take active steps to discover facts so that they might be disclosed (paragraphs 24 to 29).
Decision(s) to Download:	[2014] AACR 4bv.doc