Proceeds of Crime

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
  • #31773

    In 2006 we were asked by the police to suspend hb payts to a landlord as they were being investigated for money laundering. Later that year we closed the claim down as we did not know how long it would take to conclude.
    Now in 2010 we have been advised that all the required monies have been recovered from the people concerned & hb can resume.
    This case was subject to rent officer referrals & hasn’t been referred for several years.
    If we revise the decision & reopen back to 2006, where do we stand from a subsidy point of view & can the rent officer do retrospective decisions?


    I don’t understand this, why would you cancel a claim because the landlord was being investigated? Did you not simply pay the tenant? On what basis did you revise the claims as there has been no change in circs? or was it the case that there were no rental liabilities??


    I’m sure everyone here will agree that the decision to ‘close the claim’ was wrong – that doesn’t help the original poster. The question is – how do you make it right?

    See this thread forthe Rent Service’s new procedure for dealing with retrospective requests (short answer: they don’t).

    Before you do anything you will need to check that the claimant is still occupying the dwelling and that there had been no changes in circs since 2006. With a bit of luck they’ll have moved out 😉

    I’d be tempted to just use the last existing RO decision and if they are still entitled, do a new request now.

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