Are we now being told that there is no discretionary element in deciding who is responsible for the repayment of an overpayment therefore decisions about who is held responsible is appealable?
In a nutshell:
Reg 101(1) If overpayment made to a landord but they have brought to the attention possible fraudulent action of the claimant or reported the change of circumstance then recovery must be from the claimant. OP as a a result of a change of address are not in this exclusion.
Reg 101(2)(a)(i) if overpayment the result of misrepresentation or failed to notify a change then recovery is from the person responsible for misrepresentation or failure to disclose regardless of who received payment.
Reg 101(2)(a)(ii) if overpayment result of official error then recovery must be from the person reasonable expected to know about the error either from receiving the payment of from details on the notification.
If Reg 101(2)(a) applies to both claimant and landlord because either they both failed to report or misrepresented something that caused the overpayment or they would both have been aware that an error had been made then BOTH are told that recovery can be made from them (this is appealable) but the actual enforcement of the recoery is a separate issue and not appealable.
Reg 101(2)(b) is just saying that if if the previous exceptions to recovery from the person who received payment does not apply then the claimant can be added to the prescribed person (the person who had the payment) as stated in section 75 of SSAA. In these cases how do you decide who is responsible or do you tell BOTH are responsible if the landlord had the money and the make a sparate non-appealable decision about enforcement.
Does anyone agree with this synopsis?
.
