# Letting a HB claim continue once you've moved out..



## madzone (Apr 3, 2012)

Who's the most guilty in the eyes of the law, the claimant or the landlord for pocketing the money? Or are they equally guilty and equally liable to pay it back?


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Apr 3, 2012)

err not sure there is a contest here.
Claimant is guilty of not telling the HB office of an important change of circumstances that would change his entitlement, which I believe he is legally bound to after signing his first claim.
Landlord is just plain guilty taking money he shouldn't be, which I guess would be theft or fraud or whatever.
disclaimer: that is just my personal non legal savvy opinion


----------



## _angel_ (Apr 3, 2012)

Can't see what the advantage is to the claimant, unless of course the money is going to them, not the landlord??


----------



## madzone (Apr 3, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> Can't see what the advantage is to the claimant, unless of course the money is going to them, not the landlord??


The landlord was charging them for storing their stuff in an outbuilding because they only gave them a week's notice and they had nowhere to store their stuff. The payments were being made directly to the landlord because the claimant has organisational issues.


----------



## _angel_ (Apr 3, 2012)

I didn't know you could claim money for storage fullstop!


----------



## madzone (Apr 3, 2012)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> err not sure there is a contest here.
> Claimant is guilty of not telling the HB office of an important change of circumstances that would change his entitlement, which I believe he is legally bound to after signing his first claim.
> Landlord is just plain guilty taking money he shouldn't be, which I guess would be theft or fraud or whatever.
> disclaimer: that is just my personal non legal savvy opinion


That's my view too but the claimant seems to think it will all be his responsibility. I'm all for going to the plod myself.


----------



## madzone (Apr 3, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> I didn't know you could claim money for storage fullstop!


 
You can't. The landlord said they could store their stuff if they kept paying rent.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Apr 3, 2012)

madzone said:


> You can't. The landlord said they could store their stuff if they kept paying rent.


ouch, sounds like the claimant will be the guilty one there, as he can't claim for storage whereas the landlord is entitled to charge him for storage the moment he agrees to pay for it.
Claimant should have closed his claim and paid some other way

Q: surely the storage fee was not the same as the rent the tenant was paying for his accomodation previously? just read the previous post.

So am thinking the landlord could still get in trouble in that case if he pocketed more than the storage fee was (I assume the claimant didn't fill a change of circumstances for a smaller fee) [/s] just read the previous post.
Extortionate storage fee that :/, but that won't exonerate the claimant.

How long was this going on for?


----------



## madzone (Apr 3, 2012)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> ouch, sounds like the claimant will be the guilty one there, as he can't claim for storage whereas the landlord is entitled to charge him for storage the moment he agrees to pay for it.
> Claimant should have closed his claim and paid some other way
> 
> Q: surely the storage fee was not the same as the rent the tenant was paying for his accomodation previously? just read the previou
> ...


 
A few months - £1600 worth. She just told him to keep paying rent. There was no written agreement that it was storage. Also she's been recieving payments directly from the council so she can't say she didn't know where the money was coming from.
It was only a few boxes in a disused outhouse and she was charging him £70 or £80 a week.

If she fucking wriggles out of this I'll burn her fucking shed down. Money grabbing cunt.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Apr 3, 2012)

You're most likely better off waiting for advice from someone who actually knows all this but it sounds to me like he'll have to repay it all, might be able to agree low repayment if he has not much income is on benefit but from my personnal experience with HB on completely different situation the low payment plan is probably the best he can hope for.
That's nearly 2 years of getting money you're not entitled to and even if I can understand that he might have been in a situation where he had no financial choice the law would more than likely not give a toss about this; i'd say get professional advice double quick ('m assuming something has come up/changed to bring that question) and maybe go on a pre-emptive strike to _try_ to avoid this going to court.


----------



## madzone (Apr 3, 2012)

It's definitely not 2 years - he only moved out last Autumn.

She's been getting money she's not entitled to either so hopefully she won't be allowed to get away with it.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 3, 2012)

madzone said:


> It's definitely not 2 years - he only moved out last Autumn.
> 
> She's been getting money she's not entitled to either so hopefully she won't be allowed to get away with it.


I think, as with most things in law, you have to show intent. If the landlord is in a position to plausibly plead total ignorance, unless you can prove otherwise (and not a his word against hers sort of thing) then I can't see how she could get done.


----------



## madzone (Apr 3, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I think, as with most things in law, you have to show intent. If the landlord is in a position to plausibly plead total ignorance, unless you can prove otherwise (and not a his word against hers sort of thing) then I can't see how she could get done.


What I'm hoping is that because she was specifically getting payments from HB (I don't know if she was getting BACS or cheques) she won't be able to claim she didn't know who was paying her.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Apr 3, 2012)

madzone said:


> It's definitely not 2 years - he only moved out last Autumn.
> 
> She's been getting money she's not entitled to either so hopefully she won't be allowed to get away with it.


Yes, I'd read your previous post a bit wrong, sorry.

My guess is that if she was getting paid direct then she'll have to pay it back, claimant might still get in trouble though for "failure to declare" blah blah blah, so proper professional advice is needed.

And then she will probably try and extract whatever money she can from the claimant since there was an agreement (I'm no legal expert but I'm pretty sure a verbal agreement is contractually binding though), how far she can get with that is a different story though.


----------



## Blagsta (Apr 3, 2012)

It'll be the tenants responsibility, as its their claim.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 3, 2012)

madzone said:


> What I'm hoping is that because she was specifically getting payments from HB (I don't know if she was getting BACS or cheques) she won't be able to claim she didn't know who was paying her.


I got that bit, but could she argue she had no idea the tenant had moved out?


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Apr 3, 2012)

madzone said:


> What I'm hoping is that because she was specifically getting payments from HB (I don't know if she was getting BACS or cheques) she won't be able to claim she didn't know who was paying her.


She might be able to pretend that she didn't know it was wrong/illegal though.


----------



## madzone (Apr 3, 2012)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> Yes, I'd read your previous post a bit wrong, sorry.
> 
> My guess is that if she was getting paid direct then she'll have to pay it back, claimant might still get in trouble though for "failure to declare" blah blah blah, so proper professional advice is needed.
> 
> And then she will probably try and extract whatever money she can from the claimant since there was an agreement (I'm no legal expert but I'm pretty sure a verbal agreement is contractually binding though), how far she can get with that is a different story though.


At the point where she tries to extract payment from him she'll have to start dealing with me. I don't think she'll like that


----------



## madzone (Apr 3, 2012)

.The caravan is in her garden. She moved a new tenant in (cash in hand) before he'd even had a chance to move his stuff. She only gave him a week to move out and he was away at the time. She put all his stuff in an outbuilding


----------



## madzone (Apr 3, 2012)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> She might be able to pretend that she didn't know it was wrong/illegal though.


I dunno - how can it be ok to still receive rent from someone who doesn't live there? No-one would believe she's that stupid.


----------



## maldwyn (Apr 3, 2012)

The money is recoverable from the landlord (as the money was paid direct to them) and the tenant is liable to get busted for fraud.


----------



## madzone (Apr 3, 2012)

maldwyn said:


> The money is recoverable from the landlord (as the money was paid direct to them) and the tenant is liable to get busted for fraud.


The claimant could possibly say as he wasn't getting any money he thought the claim had stopped. That's what I'd be saying to him if I was his solicitor  But yeah, it was a twattish thing to do and I doubt he'll get away with it. As long as he doesn't have to pay the money back though...


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Apr 3, 2012)

madzone said:


> The claimant could possibly say as he wasn't getting any money he thought the claim had stopped. That's what I'd be saying to him if I was his solicitor  But yeah, it was a twattish thing to do and I doubt he'll get away with it. As long as he doesn't have to pay the money back though...


Well (and again: I'm not a legal person) I think the best the claimant can hope for is mitigating circumstances towards the fraud accusation, but he _is_ responsible for _his_ claim:
he should have stopped it and didn't
:/

landlord sounds like a right cnut, hopefully they'll get done for the cash in hand from the new tenant in the process.


----------



## maldwyn (Apr 3, 2012)

I used to be a rent officer for a Housing Co-op and whenever a tenant on direct payment was over paid we had to repay it and then pursue the tenant - can't imagine the 'rules' are any different for a private landlord.


----------



## madzone (Apr 3, 2012)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> Well (and again: I'm not a legal person) I think the best the claimant can hope for is mitigating circumstances towards the fraud accusation, but he _is_ responsible for _his_ claim:
> he should have stopped it and didn't
> :/
> 
> landlord sounds like a right cnut, hopefully they'll get done for the cash in hand from the new tenant in the process.


 
There's _plenty_ she could get done for. I would have thought she'd be more careful myself but there's now't so queer as folk.


----------



## madzone (Apr 3, 2012)

maldwyn said:


> I used to be a rent officer for a Housing Co-op and whenever a tenant on direct payment was over paid we had to repay it and then pursue the tenant - can't imagine the 'rules' are any different for a private landlord.


 
Do you mean she'd have to pay it back and then pursue him for reimbursement?


----------



## maldwyn (Apr 3, 2012)

Yep.


----------



## editor (Apr 3, 2012)

Fraud, innit, plain and simple.


----------



## madzone (Apr 3, 2012)

editor said:


> Fraud, innit, plain and simple.


 
For which one?


----------



## madzone (Apr 3, 2012)

maldwyn said:


> Yep.


 
I'm cool with that. That would be an ok outcome afaics.


----------



## editor (Apr 3, 2012)

madzone said:


> For which one?


Whoever was knowingly claiming for something they shouldn't have been claiming for.


----------



## madzone (Apr 3, 2012)

editor said:


> Whoever was knowingly claiming for something they shouldn't have been claiming for.


 
That would be both of them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 3, 2012)

madzone said:


> .The caravan is in her garden. She moved a new tenant in (cash in hand) before he'd even had a chance to move his stuff. She only gave him a week to move out and he was away at the time. She put all his stuff in an outbuilding


 
A week? Hmm. I thought the presumption was that a tenant (as opposed to a lodger) has a right to the conditions offered by a Assured Shorthold Tenancy even if one isn't offered/is "forgotten", which would mean she broke the law by binning him in a week.
Thetenant could also claim, without fear of being rebutted except by the landlady, that the landlady had told him "don't worry about contacting the housing benefit people, I'll do it".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 3, 2012)

madzone said:


> For which one?


 
Technically, both.
Morally, the benefit was massively asymmetric. The landlady got 99% of the benefit, and the tenant 1%.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Apr 3, 2012)

madzone said:


> That would be both of them.


The landlord wouldn't get done for fraud as it's not her claim, some sort of dishonesty based offence for sure though.


----------



## madzone (Apr 3, 2012)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> The landlord wouldn't get done for fraud as it's not her claim, some sort of dishonesty based offence for sure though.


But she knew the money was being paid as rent from HB. It's why she made sure the next tenant was paying cash.


----------



## past caring (Apr 3, 2012)

Lot of bollocks talked here, I'm afraid.....

There are, potentially, two different legal issues.


Recovery of the overpayment of benefit by the local authority. The law says that HB overpayments are _always_ recoverable unless caused by official error (even where caused by official error they are still recoverable if the claimant or the landlord [in cases where the overpayment can also be recovered from the landlord] could reasonably have realised at the time that they were being overpaid). No question that the cause in this case is_ not_ official error, so it's going to be recoverable.

This is a civil matter - fraud (a criminal offence) does not enter into it. The rules about whether overpayment can be recovered from a landlord are a little complex, so I'm not going into them here. I'll just say that on the facts, there is no question that in this case the overpayment will be recoverable from either party. The local authority has discretion from whom to recover and is likely to pursue the party where it stands the best chance of recovery - this could well be the claimant if the claimant has an ongoing claim with the same local authority, in which case it will recover by ongoing deductions from the current award. Whilst the authority can recover from either party it cannot, obviously, recover from both (i.e. twice). Its decision _as to whom to recover from_ does not carry a right of appeal - the only right of appeal is against the decision that you have been overpaid and the overpayment is recoverable.


Fraud - it is an offence to make a false representation _or to fail to report a change of circumstances that *you know* affects your entitlement. _

The knowledge is crucial in order to found the criminal offence - might have known, could have known, should have known are not good enough, the prosecution will have to satisfy the court that you in fact _did_ know. This might well be easier for them to do with the landlord rather than the claimant in this case - certainly the landlord knew their tenant had left and would struggle to convince a court that they could in any way have thought that they might still be entitled to HB after that (even harder if this were not the first time they had let to a tenant claiming HB). The tenant on the other hand could be in a better position - especially if on moving out they moved to somewhere where they claimed HB from the same local authority (you'd simply say that you thought that the new claim on the new address constituted disclosure - it wouldn't do for the purposes of the overpayment/civil case, but it would be good enough to prevent the prosecution proving their case beyond reasonable doubt).

Whether the LA goes for a fraud prosecution (it appears there's not even been a fraud investigation so far) is a different matter - most LA fraud units have targets and will not go for a case unless there's more than £5k involved, so it may well not arise here. Also worth bearing in mind that it is not a case of either/or - the LA can recover the overpayment (civil matter) and go for a fraud case (criminal) at the same time.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Apr 3, 2012)

there you go, some proper advice.


----------



## madzone (Apr 3, 2012)

I just phoned them up. They were very nice and said a reconsideration should be asked for. Ideally they'd want something in writing from the landlady but I explained that would be unlikely as it would be her admitting she's been receiving HB for a tenant who doesn't live there. They understood. We'll see. It doesn't sound like they'll take it to court for a while yet.


----------

