“It has been classified as Claimant Error and as payments were made to the HA, the HA was invoiced.” This makes no sense, if it is claimant error then it’s recoverable from the claimant instead of the HA.
However, it clearly isn’t claimant error is it: the claimant disclosed that he was on UC and that he believed this meant he was no longer entitled to HB. On the face of it, failure at least to investigate that is LA error; however, it seems to me that the HA definitely contributed to any LA error by including the property on the supported housing schedule. This means that the Reg 100 definition of official error is not satisfied (person receiving payments of HB caused or contributed to the error). Instead, the overpayment is recoverable from the landlord as they received the money and misrepresented the facts. The claimant should be in the clear.
It was therefore correct to invoice the landlord. Whether it’s correct for them to recoup the money from the tenant is another matter, but that’s a private issue between them.
