HB RA Overpayment and Underlying Entitlement

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #34325
    stevedaymond
    Participant

    I have had a claim where the claimant notified us late of a change in circumstances. This made the claimants entitlement £0.38 so nil entitlement as under £0.50 per week. However, the rent used in the calculation was under the LHA room rate that she was eligible for. The overpayment is only £10.50 per week, but if the correct LHA rate for the claimant is applied the overpayment will be reduced by £5.00 per week.

    Using Adan v London Borough of Hounslow and Another: [i:7b3e75c7fa]None have been suggested by the respondents. In my view, the correct approach is to construe regulation 104(a) on the basis that “amount … properly payable” means the amount that should have been determined to be payable if, on notification of the relevant change of circumstances, a fresh claim to benefit had been made[/i:7b3e75c7fa].

    So can I use the LHA rate that she would have been eligible for had she applied based on nil entitlement to normal HB following her change of circumstances and apply underlying entitlement to reduce the overpayment?

    #96416
    Ozzies Mate
    Participant

    Another perverse reality of LHA but I follow the process perfectly.

    If we were to treat a new claim as being received from the date the entitlement ended for the purposes of u/e then yes it would ahve been an LHA claim therefore any entitlement would have been based on an LHA rate.

    Strange now that although the income would not change the HB entitlement could due to the different eligible rent amount

    #96417
    stevedaymond
    Participant

    Cheers for that Ozzie.

    So let me get this right. If we have an overpayment created on an old scheme RA case and that claim becomes nil entitlement. Where the maximum eligible rent used in the HB calculation was lower than the BRMA that they are entitled to using [i:8a117d3d78]Adan v London Borough of Hounslow and Another[/i:8a117d3d78] we have to treat the claimant as if they had reclaimed HB whenever necessary and use underlying entitlement to reduce the overpayment.

    Seems strange that we can use LHA to reduce an old style RA overpayment but at the end of the day the claimants overpayment has reduced and we get maximum subsidy for the UE so everybody’s happy 😛

    #96418
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I think your analysis is spot on there Steve, using the interpretation of the regs in that CD.
    That is how I would suggest to our staff that they approach it also.

    #96419
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Here’s a question – should any overpayment, regardless of whether entitlement has been reduced to nil, be reduced through underlying entitlement in this way?

    #96420
    Ozzies Mate
    Participant

    I think it would only apply where nil entitlements apply.

    If for instance in Steve’s example the HB dropped to £0.51, then the claim would remain on the scheme that it was & then I cannot see how you could try to apply an LHA scheme rate on a non-LHA claim unless there was any change that could have resulted in the a change to LHA i.e. nil entitlement or move.

    That brings us back round to the transferring to LHA merry-go-round again which as we have all sen on previous threads cannot have a retrospective request to transfer onto LHA

    #96421
    stevedaymond
    Participant

    That is a very good point Mwigg. It does seem to state that we should be looking at it as if a new claim was made when the circumstances changes if this is beneficial to the claimant, so post April this would be LHA. So possibly yes based on the commissioners decision it could be looked at using the BRMA. However, personally I agree with Ozzies Mate that it was intended for periods with nil entitlement. Wasn’t LHA meant to make everything easier!!!

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.