Terms & Conditions

[beth_daly]

Good afternoon.

Claimant moved from an HRA tenancy into a RA property. Claim was overpaid by 2 weeks at the old address – 1 week clmt error and 1 week technical error. Claim was then paid at HA address.

Cell 55 The overpayments have netted down against the gross.

There is nothing in cells 58 or 59.

Cell 94 is correct.

Our auditors and myself are of the opinion that the overpayment should not have netted down in cell 55 as the coa was to a different division.

Our Software company says it is correct.

Anyone’s opinions or suggestions to where I can find guidance would be very much appreciated.

Thank you,

Beth

[keith j]

Tempting fate here…….. My thought is that the coa may have been to a different division, but the overpayment was in the original division, so your Software Supplier is correct. Unless I’m misreading your post which is entirely possible.

[keith j]

Tempting fate here…….. My thought is that the coa may have been to a different division, but the overpayment was in the original division, so your Software Supplier is correct. Unless I’m misreading your post which is entirely possible.

SORRY Double post

[seanosul]

All overpayments are to be netted down – unless there remained a liability for rent at the old address.

[keith j]

[quote:2c5217b3f2=”seanosul”]All overpayments are to be netted down – unless there remained a liability for rent at the old address.[/quote:2c5217b3f2]

Agreed Sean, I was trying to say that, but also avoid giving the impression that you could use HB to net off CTB. Don’t know why, just too damned careful I suppose. 🙄

[beth_daly]

Thank you both,

Auditors are now happy that it has netted down.

Nothing out there that I can find either says it is correct or not correct!!

Your help is appreciated.

Beth

[seanosul]

I have lots of stuff on this – pm me your email address.

[Author]

Posts