Appealing Benefit Decision Notice

[JohnnyNoHair]

One of my tenants got over 8 weeks in arrears and I applied for direct payment of rent on 8 December. I received a decision notice dated 12 January to say that they will pay direct from 08 February.

According to the guidelines manual

"where a decision on whether the claimant meets the safeguard criteria cannot be made quickly you should consider making payment to the landlord in the meantime"


" once arrears have reached eight weeks, the local authority will be required to make direct payments to the landlord ..."

As the payment paid on 11 January was made to the tenant and not passed onto me, do I have a valid case for the appeals tribunal? Verbally the LA have told me that only the tenant can appeal.

[tom999]

Verbally the LA have told me that only the tenant can appeal.If you mean that a housing benefit officer told you this, then he/she was talking nonsense.

Appeal against the LA's decision; don't rely on their guidelines; remind them of the law: Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, s.95(1)(b); and, that the DWP's guidelines (http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=25100) were amended in December 2009.

Also, make a formal complaint to the head of the Benefit's dept.

[JohnnyNoHair]

thanks for the reply. I have seen a number of references to the change in the guideline but all of the links go to the 2007 version. Is the 2009 revision published anywhere pls?

Also, do I have a case that the direct payment should have started on January 11th?

cheers

[tom999]

The guideline's amendments can be seen by looking in the footer of the Guidance Manual (http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/lha-guidance-manual.pdf), i.e. 'December 2009'; see: 4.40 (page 46); and, also highlighted in the thread in post #2.

Also see: LHA Guidance Ammended (http://landlordsrant.blogspot.com/2010/01/lha-guidance-ammended-on-direct-payment.html).

Direct payments should have been made to the LL from the date that there were 8 weeks of rent arrears.

[JohnnyNoHair]

Thanks Tom.

I have now asked for the matter to be referred to the Tribunal Service.

regards
john

[Emma1973]

There was recently a Commissioners Decision on this very issue, let me see if I can find it and will give you the link. This will come in very useful!

FOund it!

Norwich City Council

91/B/2636 The housing benefit office had agreed to pay housing benefit to the landlord but instead paid it to the tenant. The tenant then left and the landlord was unable to collect the money. The Ombudsman recommended that the housing benefit office make a payment to the landlord equivalent to the housing benefit lost and an additional £250 for time and trouble.

This was actually done through the Local Government Ombudsman not through the The Tribunal Service. The TS can take up to several months to come to appeal so it may be worth getting on with the LGO first.

[tom999]

Here's the link for the recent Doncaster v Coventry City Council, First Tier Tribunal 032/09/00932, 5 October 2009 (http://www.all4landlords.com/drupal/node/429), and the decision (http://issuu.com/guild/docs/tribunal_decision_8_weeks_arrears?mode=a_p), that the Judge disagreed with the LHA guidance manual. :D

[JohnnyNoHair]

thanks for the link but the killer words of the decision are here:

"The appellant is entitled to payment of rent in respect of ... from the period 17 September 2008 to 12 October 2008 totalling £392.32 since the tenant was in arrears of 8 weeks with his rent as at the decision date.

Whilst the appellant has an entitlement to be paid, because of the off setting provisions contained in regulation 98 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 no actual payment can be made. (Observations of Mr Commissioner Jacobs in CH 3629/2006 considered and applied)."

It seems to say that whilst the Council should have paid the rent to the landlord, because they paid it to the tenant, they cannot be forced to pay it again to the landlord. IE: landlord is stuffed !

[tom999]

Yes, it seems to be true that another HB payment cannot be made to the LL if it's already been made to the T, but the Judgement of CJ Jones, continues:

"Compensation is due to the appellant and should be paid now rather than the appellant pursue a protracted application to the Ombudsman. Decision 3629/2006 (http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j2183/CH%200180%202006-00.doc) specifically refers to the issue of compensation..."

So it seems that Coventry CC will have to compensate the LL.

[Emma1973]

Toms case is slightly different because the original appeal was because the LA wouldnt pay it direct because they didnt consider the tenant was arrears (albeit they were by the time they went to Tribunal). The fact is that the tenant could have paid up by then, then the issue would have been around whether a LL could be paid when there are 8 weeks owing.

The case I listed is one that deals specifically with your issue.

"The housing benefit office had agreed to pay housing benefit to the landlord but instead paid it to the tenant. The tenant then left and the lardlord was unable to collect the money. The Ombudsman recommended that the housing benefit office make a payment to the landlord equivalent to the housing benefit lost and an additional £250 for time and trouble" Has also happened in several other cases as well

But I'm afraid I cant find a link.

[tom999]

I believe that this forum post refers to Emma1973's case:
Rightsnet: HB paid to wrong payee (http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=8348#8353), see last post by 'irene':

Back in 1998 we had a similar problem. The main difference was that our tenant had left, so we could not pursue him for the rent owed.

After finding the following information in 'Housing Benefit for Housing Managers' book, I wrote to the LA and was successful in getting them to send us a cheque for £348.62, the amount incorrectly paid to the tenant.

"91/B/2636 - Norwich City Council - Benefit paid to claimant instead of landlord.

The housing benefit office had agreed to pay housing benefit to the landlord but instead paid it to the tenant. The tenant then left and the lardlord was unable to collect the money. The Ombudsman recommended that the housing benefit office make a payment to the landlord equivalent to the housing benefit lost and an additional £250 for time and trouble. In a similar case in Barrow in Furness (00/C/05755) a recommendation of a payment of £500 was made. In 99/B/04581 Southend council were asked to pay £2050. In cases like these the Ombudsman will expect the landlord to do all that they reasonably can to collect the rent owed from the tenant."

[JohnnyNoHair]

Hi

My case is slightly different. The Council have agreed to pay the rent from 11 Jan effectively ( paid in arrears on 8 Feb). However the law seems to state that the rent should be paid to the landlord if the tenant is 8 weeks in arrears.

My letter to the council was posted on 18 Dec and my understanding is that they should pay me from the date that they received the letter, not the date that they processed it, which was about three weeks later.

Any comments?

[havensRus]

My case is slightly different. The Council have agreed to pay the rent from 11 Jan effectively ( paid in arrears on 8 Feb). However the law seems to state that the rent should be paid to the landlord if the tenant is 8 weeks in arrears.

My letter to the council was posted on 18 Dec and my understanding is that they should pay me from the date that they received the letter, not the date that they processed it, which was about three weeks later.

Any comments?

Yep.

Basically, when the Council receive notification, they should suspend the claim whilst they investigate with the T etc.etc. and then pay the LL once arrears proven. However, some councils don't treat the matter with the level of urgency it requires, and therefore do not suspend the claim immediately. When they then decide to deal with it which could be days or weeks later, a payment may have already gone out to the T-which cannot be reclaimed.

I have recently challenged a council on that particular issue and won - as I had a similar case where I emailed the benefits office, posted the letter, telephoned to confirm email had been received of the notification of T in arrears >8 weeks, but they still did not deal with it until 9 days later, and went on to pay T for that 4-week cycle.
I then complained to Benefits Manager, who effectively said "tough, its happened" in a nice way. I then made a formal complaint through the complaints procedure of the council, it went to Head of Benefits and Revenues, and he called me just this morning to offer apologies for the way in which they dealt with the matter, and to say they will be paying me compensation which is equivalent to the 4 weeks payment that was paid to T instead of to me. And as a result of my complaint, have modified their procedure for dealing with such cases (ha! I will believe that when I see it happen, but I hope I don't have to test it). He also gave me his direct number and said to call if ever I had any issues that weren't being properly dealt with in future.

I will encourage you to make a formal complaint to the LA, state your case clearly, and you will get a response.

The law does state that the LHA should be paid to the LL if T has >8 weeks of rent liability unpaid, but the DWP Guidelines seemed to be what the Councils followed - and then it had to be 8 weeks of arrears rather than 8 weeks unpaid rent etc.etc. Now the DWP guidelines have been revised to 4-weeks of rent arrears.