Overpayments A13 para 30-38

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #22512
    su
    Participant

    Hi all…it might be because it is hot and the coolers have broken again, but I’m struggling with para 30-38…does anybody have a few words of plain English to clarify what this is actually means?
    😳

    #8404
    seanosul
    Participant

    Recover from the claimant when it is their fault and the landlord, when they are at fault. Send the same decision notice to both claimant and landlord (hmm got to think about that one).

    #8405
    Anonymous
    Guest

    See the other thread on this just below yours.
    i didnt understand it til I re-read CH/4234/2004 (twice!)
    i think one of the problems is the word “recoverable” which seems to be used in A13 both to mean “can be recovered from under the regs” and “we’ve decided to recover from” which is confusing. CH /4234 is good at explaining the difference betwwen the teo, the first of which is a “proper”decision and the second of which is a discretionary choice, so they carry different appeal rights.
    basically what i understand 30-38 to mean is:
    “before april 2006 changes it was only where circumstances under reg 101(1) applied that recovery had to be from the person who had caused the o’p rather than anyone to whom HB had been paid. To avoid problems at appeal, its best if the decisions on who the o’p shd be recovered from are sent to all people who it could be recovered from. (whichi think is why the o’p appeals for this period were stayed for 3 mths). then all of them will be parties to the appeal.
    after 2006 there are more circumstances where someone instead of the person who was paid shd have the recovery taken from them (reg 101(2)- even though reg 75(3) still refers to “as wellas OR instead of” because 101(2) just says “instead of” so this appears to over-ride it.
    para 38 seems to say that because there may be a dispute about who IS the person who misrepresented (and therefore shd be recovered from) its still a good idea to send a single decision notice to all parties just in case it turns out it shd have been recovered from the one not originally thought to be the liable person ( ie someone else misrepresented).
    HOWEVER i seem to recall a thread just after the new april 2006 reg 101 came out where some people felt that reg 75 (3) still meant that it was an “as well as” situation not just an “instead of” . The LA’s ive spoken to disagree, but i suppose this will be decided by case law if anyone wants to test it.
    PLEASE YOU CLEVER PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND THESE THINGS BETTER THAN ME TELL ME IF I’VE COMPLETELY MISINTERPRETED A13!!!!!! 😳

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