Blameless tenant recovery and subsidy on Northgate

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
  • #286240

    Just wondered if anyone else using Northgate has noticed this:
    Where an overpayment has been created due to vacation/end of liability (Temp acc.)and the overpayment has been set to LLI (blameless tenant) – when we’ve checked the subsidy screens for these claims there are no overpayment cells populated (I’m expecting to see the op in cell 27) it’s as though N/gate thinks LLI is ongoing entitlement to HB and has netted down the op.

    I’ve noticed a few like this – I should be able to see the op in subsidy cells shouldn’t I? regardless of the op recovery method – feel like I’m missing something

    Any advice/guidance welcome

    Andy Thurman

    I’m not fully familiar with the system process but, if you are flagging as blameless tenant, the system probably is considering it to be ongoing entitlement – blameless tenant recovery is, by definition, recovering overpaid HB from other claimant’s payments (of properly paid HB) to the same LL. The LLI code should only be used if this is what is being done.

    The end of liability overpayments are not blameless tenant – they are recoverable from the rent accounts but are in respect of the same claimant’s award.

    Naomi Armstrong

    Overpayment subsidy and overpayment recovery are not linked unless for the same claimant for the same period.

    Your example.
    Claimant A – overpayment of £100 in cell 27. No netting off or ongoing HB to recover from.

    Same landlord has 2 other tenants.
    Claiamnt B current entitlement of £60pw
    Claimant C current entitlement of £70PW.

    Blameless tenant recovery means that the £130 payment the landlord was expecting for claimants B and C is reduced to £30 but you still get the £130 in subsidy. Effectively a credit to the Council of £100, which you use to clear the debt of claiamt A.

    I would expect the £100 in Cell 27 for Claimant A to still be there and you get 40% of that.

    Hope that makes sense!


    The overpayments should be classed as T (technical)when they are created (or if you forget class them as LA error as it will not recognise the T afterwards). This will send the OP to cell 27 to be recoverable from your Housing Team. As Andy has said they are not blameless tenant. We send invoices to our Housing Team and they pay them back.



    Hi – thanks for responses

    The OP’s are in respect of the homeless team (not HRA accounts) we’ve recovered via blameless tenant for some time is this wrong?

    Peter Barker

    Blameless tenant refers to a case where an overpayment is recoverable from a landlord, and recovery is made by deducting money from the HB entitlement of one or more other tenants whose HB is paid to the same landlord. If you are describing non-HRA rebate cases, where the Council is the landlord, the blameless tenant procedure has nothing to do with that at all.

    Just to be clear, when you pay HB in a non-HRA rebate case, you are not paying HB to the landlord because you are the landlord. The overpayment cannot be recoverable from the landlord because you are the landlord, you cannot recover money from yourself.

    What you have here is a Cell 27 technical “overpayment”, which isn’t really an overpayment at all because the termination of the rent account renders the HB that has been “paid” a nullity. The fact that some money has moved between different LA cost centres is of no consequence, you will just have to un-move it.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.