Terms & Conditions

[jduffy]

We have a case where we have overlooked a new RO decision, which will result in the claimant being awarded full HB. The new decision has been input from the appropriate date resulting in an underpayment of benefit.

However during the period that the underpayment covers, the claimant was paid a DHP to match the shortfall between entitlement to HB and contractual rent.

We have two thoughts at our place – 1. Live with it and release the underpayment and accept that they have been lucky. 2. Invoice for any overpaid DHP outside of the HB scheme.

I was wondering what most people did in such situations?

Thanks.

[Simo]

we definitely wouldn’t let them have it twice.

I appreciate you can’t recover overpaid DHP from ongoing benefit. Is correcting an administrative error doing this? or could you not justify in this instance offsetting, perhaps with the agreement of the claimant

[Anonymous]

Sounds to me like you have no choice:

You MUST pay any HB entitlement.

You do however have a choice with the DHP i.e. attempt to recover (through invoice) or not.

What you have not said is the amount you are to consider. This has a bearing as it may be more expensive in the long run to persue the O/P than the value of it in the first place.

Out of interest . . . if you recover via invoice does any payment go back into the DHP budget (remembering that DHP is not HB)? I’ve yet to encounter anyone who does account for a DHP paid invoice separately to any other HB overpayment !!

[ABrady]

Ongoing benefit? if the HB is an underpayment can’t you justify offsetting as you would if it had been an HB o/p?

[Anonymous]

In similar situations, a council where I worked, would ask the claimant’s permission to recover the DHP overpayment from the HB underpayment explaining that it would save having to invoice the claimant and send them a form to sign and a pre paid envelope. It seemed to work.

[david farrar]

As I understand it, overpaid DHPs are only recoverable where one of the conditions of Reg 8(2) of the DFA Regs is met.

From the infiormation you have supplied, I would question the recoverability of the DHP.

[Anonymous]

I agree we don’t recover DHP o/ps from ongoing benefit, unless there is an ongoing DHP. 😕

[Salmond1]

Under no circumstances can you recover DHP through HB whether it is ongoing or not!

DHP is completely different from HB and an invoice should be raised by the authority to recoup this, to be posted back to the DHP fund through a designated ledger code! HB is a means tested benefit whereas DHP is to the discretion of the authority whether the claimant is to receive it, and for how long!

I hope this makes sense!

[Anonymous]

I’m just trying to put together a (simple) DHP overpayment recovery policy and noticed something on an earlier post above that has been nagging me for a while.

DAR reg 8(2) allows LA to recover o/ps – however, if I’m reading this right, we can only recover o/ps that were NOT caused by the LA, i.e. if a customer delays in telling the LA of a change in circs, any o/p would be recoverable. But if the LA delayed in actioning it, any o/p caused by the delay is not recoverable (although any o/p that occured prior to the notification of change being received by the LA would still be recoverable).

Also, there doesn’t seem to be any specific reg on who the overpayment should be recovered from – I assume this means we can only recover from the payee?

Am I right or is it time to go home??? 🙄

[Anonymous]

AntsD – how exactly does Reg 8(2) of the Decisions & Appeals Regs fit in with recoverable overpayments?

[Anonymous]

Sorry – I meant Reg 8(2) of the Discretionary Financial Assistance Regulations 2001 (DFAR).

Fancy forgetting the F in regulations…….

[jmembery]

If you had the new decision at the time the DHP was granted, wouldn’t reg 8(2)(b) apply allowing recovery?

[Anonymous]

CPAG states the error must be made at the point of determination and the error must be based on fact or law. I can’t see this applying to a delay in actioning a change.

[jmembery]

I think an error in the amount of entitlement to HB would constitute an error of fact.

[Anonymous]

That would be an error of fact. But that error is not occurring at the point of determination – the error is the delay and that has been and gone. Or to put it another way;

the original determination was correct, i.e. when the DHP was originally awarded

the new DHP determination is correct, i.e. the DHP is being cancelled

No error at the point of any determination has been made. Its just the second determination was made late. The delay itself is not an error.

[Author]

Posts