Can Council Recover Overpayment Via Benefit AND Criminal Court/Confiscation Order?

[samsmoot]

Hiyas!


Have tried to steer clear of legal stuff - but you know how it is.

A couple or three years ago or so my friend was subject to an overpayment decision re Housing/Council Tax Benefit. She appealed and lost and the Tribunal judge confirmed the decision, stating the overpayment could be recovered from benefit.

The Council then took my friend to court and charged her with a summary offence of failing to notify a change of circumstances in respect of the same overpayment(s).

Due to a technicality (corrupt chief fraud investigator signing invalid paperwork) my friend won her appeal against conviction in the Magistrates' Court at the Crown Court upon rehearing (It wasn't reheard - they had to back out once the dodgy document came to light). The conviction was quashed.

Thing is, at the Magistrates' Court the bench was interrupted pre-sentencing by the Council who wanted sentencing in the Crown Court so the Council could recover the overpayment by way of a confiscation order. As the appeal succeeded it obviously never got to this sentencing.

Fast forward and two or so years later the Council has applied for and will probably get the overpayment deducted from my friend's Pension Credits allowance. This was a bit surprising as they could have applied for the deductions at any time after it all settled but they didn't.

Anyway, my friend is a bit aggrieved at this. They expected the Council to leave them alone, as they decided to leave the Council alone (i.e. not pursue a wrongful conviction claim or seek compensation (for loss of goods related to subsequent eviction). Not only that, the Tribunal judge was wrong that both HB and CTC were subject to recovery, so the CTB part of it shouldn't count. It boils down to the fact of previous case law findings of no Council Tax being payable if you aren't resident - if no HB can be paid if you aren't living there you shouldn't be subject to Council Tax because you're not living there. Any overpayments in this case were what they call 'technical overpayments', as no money was paid over - it's just figures being moved around on Council paperwork.

So the question is can they do this?

Had the Crown Court upheld the conviction, and had they granted a confiscation order, my friend would have been subject to recovery of the same overpayments twice. The Court would have been expected to enforce recovery, and the Council could still apply for deductions from benefit - all quite legally with all the correct paperwork. Couldn't they?

I suppose there might be a legal remedy to stop such a situation if it were to occur but would there not be in place a mechanism to prevent such a possibility? My feeling is that the Council must have given up the right to recover the money via benefit once they asked for it to be dealt with criminally. I'd have to check up on the rules for deductions and confiscation orders to see if any of that helps but what do you think?

It may be that they weren't legally entitled to recover the overpayment in court if they could have recovered it through benefit deductions, but as it never got that far I never looked into that possibility. If so that's probably no help anyway.

[Crazy council]

i would be interested in any answer you get in relation to this.

I think something has changed in the way you can claim back both overpayments and debts from tenants, especialy if there on UC. I will sk the person i know thats doing this for the details see if its relevent for all claims

She may still be able to deal with the CT side of this, dont listen when they say they cant deal with it once its a liability order. As it transpires, if there is any fault in the account thats part of the pre action checks suposed to be done by the CT managment and legal,prior to procecing for further action, all you have to do is show them and push the legal teams to correct the account reletive to the date it should have been corrected.

[samsmoot]

CRAZY COUNCIL - thanks for that.

Yes, there probably have been changes since it all happened, thinking about it. Any info related to this would be welcome, thanks, as the first step will be to check on the validity of the deductions application, the correctness of the notification letter, how you can appeal etc.

Unfortunately it's going to be too late to challenge the CT overpayment - it was appealed and lost so the whole thing is lumped together. I don't think a liability order ever came into it - but thinking about it they may have got one just before going to court to cover themselves.

[samsmoot]

Letter from Pension Service arrived today saying that the deductions can't be appealed. As they aren't the DWP I have no reason to think they are lying. It does sound correct because the overpayment would, I think, fall into the type of deductions which can't be appealed.

If this really can't be appealed we will maybe look into whether the Council's seeking of a confiscation order was legal - but if it wasn't there's probably not a lot that can be done that'll make any difference, other than if it were mentioned in any future claims against the Council.

I wouldn't normally consider a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman worth the bother, but due to the corruption/illegalities on behalf of the Council any Tribunal Decision could be said to be tainted (because of the lies told by the Chief Fraud Investigator to the Tribunal). So maybe they could look into it.

Thing is, he was no longer with the Council shortly after Crown Court - because he falsified a certificate. I guess the Tribunal judge would have been expected to spot the inconsistencies, but the whole thing was a stitch-up from start to finish due to all of Them protecting the reputation of the officer (who was accused of wrongdoing by my friend). I mean, the Council and the Judge privately discussing the case beforehand doesn't sound right, does it? My friend didn't get a private consultation.

So basically the officer was wrong, and they all wrongly supported him - can't blame them all, obviously, but maybe he can be blamed for his wrongful influence, therefore making any subsequent legal decisions 'unsafe'. Any substance to this way of thinking?