Compensation for loss of HB

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #38033
    Trevor Kenward
    Participant

    Hi guys. Any help appreciated here.
    Briefly, due to incorrect advice given by a memeber of HB staff it was
    agreed following a request on claimnnts behalf for compensation to be awarded for the equivalent of the ‘loss of HB’ caused by such misinformation.
    However, before compensation was finalised the aggrieved claimant had vacated owing rent arrears. As the evidence held was that the compensation was for oss of HB and as the claimant had vacated owing rent not exceeding the compensation award the award was paid to the Landlady.
    There is now a complaint as to why we paid Landlady when she was not the party who complained.
    Anyone had any similar cases?

    #107087
    Kevin D
    Participant

    Given that the compensation was expressly in lieu of HB, one approach might be to consider how and to whom the compensation payment would have been paid had it been HB. With that in mind…

    Was the “legitimate” HB paid to the LL? If not, did the rent arrears exceed 8 weeks at the time of the compensation payment?

    In my view, only if the answer to the above is “yes”, can payment to the LL be justified. If the answer to both questions is/was “no”, I think you’re in a bit of a pickle on several levels….

    #107090
    Trevor Kenward
    Participant

    Hi Kevin, thanks for your reply.
    HB was in payment to Landlady. HB was then found to have been awarded erreneously but only ceased from paid to point. ‘Overpaid’ Hb written off. Compensation was for for period after paid to point.
    Although there is some dispute as to the actual quantum of arrears, evidence was that 4 months rent was owed. Hence compensation paid to LL.

    #107093
    Kevin D
    Participant

    Based on the info now given, I’d be inclined to stand my ground with the following in mind:

    1) The clmt has already had monies (HB) to which there was no entitlement and, by definition, has already gained financially from this alone.

    2) In addition to HB to which there was no entitlement, yet more money has been paid in the form of compensation (personally, given “1”, I’m not sure compensation was appropriate, but that’s by the by).

    3) The compensation was, apparently, expressly in lieu of HB that the clmt expected to be paid based on the erroneous info given by the LA.

    4) Had the monies awarded in compensation been paid as HB, it would still have ended up with the LL.

    5) Because of “4”, the clmt has not suffered any financial loss.

    6) In light of all the above, far from suffering a financial loss, the clmt has had monies she should never have had in the first place.

    All in all, unless there is more to this, I can’t see any justification for paying out yet more money to the clmt as there does not appear to be any loss to compensate.

    #107094
    Trevor Kenward
    Participant

    Thanks Kevin

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.