Housing/Council Tax Benefit Overpayment

Dogger69

bloolagoon wrote: »

What an honest person you are, I hope it all works out for you. I wish there were more like you in society.

My thoughts also, the OP's posts make for a refreshing change.

Wishing you all the best mummysrules

mummysrules

Thanks to bloolagoon and Dogger69 for those comments. My parents were benefit scroungers their whole lives and I always swore I would never take a penny in benefits and be a good role model for my children but unfortunately you some things are outwith your control and when my hours got slashed I had no choice but to leave our lovely privately rented home and take this council flat as I couldn't afford the rent.
Thanks to socc also, I do see what you're saying in that I have nothing to lose but I'm not out to shirk my responsibilities and would feel like I was begging if I went on to appeal, especially when I have not been penalized as it's money I was always due to pay. I would feel so guilty if I got away with it so to speak.
I think what scared me most was the council's attitude as if I was trying to scam them, something I would never do. Their staff really are quite unfriendly. I thought about complaining about her but she has since apologized and I think I'd only look as though I was bitter at the overpayment.

neverdespairgirl

socc wrote: »

Tribunals regarding anything in this country are not as independent as the authorities and obviously some people on here would have you believe

Commentary
In the course of their judgment, the ECHR emphatically endorse the Administrative Court's decisions in R(Bewry) -v- Norwich City Council [2001] EWHC Admin 657 and R(Bono and another) -v- Harlow District Council [2002] 1 WLR 275 (Admin).
As a result of the ECHR?s decision, it is strongly arguable that if an individual's claim in an area of social welfare law is dismissed solely on the grounds of credibility by an decision maker who is not independent and impartial, by definition, judicial review cannot cure the first instance deficiencies and a violation of Article 6 has taken place.

A little learning is a dangerous thing......

The whole point about the case of Tsfayo 60860/00 [2007] ECHR 656 (10 July 2007) was that a Tribunal wasn't involved.

The issue in relation to the Appellant's Housing Benefit in that case was determined initially by the Local AUthority, and on appeal, by the HBRH. As the case puts it:
Hammersmith and Fulham Council Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Review Board (“the HBRB”). The HBRB consisted of three Councillors from the Council. It was advised by a barrister from the Council's legal department.

Having failed in front of the HBRB, the Appellant's only remedy was judicial review. It was determined by the ECHR that judicial review was not a sufficient remedy as the HBRB was not an independent Tribunal, as required under Article 6 of the Convention.

Note - HBRBs were abolished well over a decade ago, and were replaced in July 2001 by tribunals set up under the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000.

Housing_Benefit_Officer

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

A little learning is a dangerous thing......

The whole point about the case of Tsfayo 60860/00 [2007] ECHR 656 (10 July 2007) was that a Tribunal wasn't involved.

The issue in relation to the Appellant's Housing Benefit in that case was determined initially by the Local AUthority, and on appeal, by the HBRH. As the case puts it:
Hammersmith and Fulham Council Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Review Board (“the HBRB”). The HBRB consisted of three Councillors from the Council. It was advised by a barrister from the Council's legal department.

Having failed in front of the HBRB, the Appellant's only remedy was judicial review. It was determined by the ECHR that judicial review was not a sufficient remedy as the HBRB was not an independent Tribunal, as required under Article 6 of the Convention.

Note - HBRBs were abolished well over a decade ago, and were replaced in July 2001 by tribunals set up under the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000.

Indeed - which makes me wonder what on earth socc's point of posting on here is.