Comments on a Tribunal decision please

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
  • #22415

    We recently took an overpayment appeal to Tribunal. We had found out that a claimant had never actually moved in & were seeking to recover from the HA.

    The decision came back that there wasn’t an overpayment for the first 2 months because the claimant can be treated as occupying the property. It was noted that neither she nor any furniture actually moved in, but she had intended to leave her father’s address, had started decorating the new property & signed for a gas supply. She decided not to move in after her father had a heart attack. The overpayment has been allowed to be recovered from the HA from the date she said she sent them the keys back. to the date payments ended.

    In my opinion this is not sufficient to be treated as ‘normally occupying’. Even in the recently reported decision all the claimant’s possessions were in the property, she had no other home and was only prevented from moving in due to serious health issue. Our claimant does not meet any of the criteria in reg 5 such as adaptation for disability or social fund loan.

    Do I need to re think my interpretation?


    at a previous site we took a case to appeal….

    claimant intended to move in, her sons had moved all her furniture in but the day prior to moving she was taken ill and had to go to hospital, several weeks later it was decided she had to go into residential care. We acknowledged to the customer that whilst we sympathised with her situation we couldn’t pay HB.

    She won the appeal and we coughed up the HB!

    Kevin D

    In wjc’s case, I’d be preparing my appeal to Commissioners straight away.

    However, the “furniture” case CD *may* mean Accura’s was decided correctly.

    Case law & CDs on occupancy include the following (not checked for direct relevance):

    [b:f6c53bc682]R v LB Hounslow ex p KHAN (1996) EWHC Admin 269 QBD
    R v LB Hounslow ex p KHAN (1997) EWCA Civ 2320

    MULLANEY (& CLAYTON) v Watford BC & Anor [1997] EWHC Admin 28
    LB Hammersmith & Fullham v CLARKE & CLARKE (2000) CA
    R v Penwith DC ex p BURT (1990) 22 HLR 292 QBD

    UK/5015/2002 [/b:f6c53bc682]


Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.