Housing Association credit £10k

Spencer2299

I recently staircased (purchased) our flat from a housing association. When I looked at my account I saw that over the last year I had been overpaying ground rent and had run up a credit of £10,000.
I contacted them and they refunded the money and I purchased a car with it.
A few months after they got in touch to say it was  a mistake on their part and they had mistakenly put the purchase date a year early - which was why it looked like I had overpaid. 

Am I obliged to pay this back?

MultiFuelBurner

Yes but contact them to pay it back at an affordable rate for yourself. But not so it takes forever. Get in there first with the offer.

You could list your income and expenditure and suggest the amount this way.

eddddy

(I expect you mean 'Rent' rather than 'Ground Rent'.)

Based on what you say, it sounds like you owe the rent for that year, so you'll have to pay it.

If you explain the circumstances, they might agree to payment by installments.


Or they might suspect that you knew there was an error on your account and you knew you weren't due a refund - in which case, they might be less sympathetic.

ArbitraryRandom

MultiFuelBurner said:

Yes but contact them to pay it back at an affordable rate for yourself. But not so it takes forever. Get in there first with the offer.

You could list your income and expenditure and suggest the amount this way.

I agree with this. 

If you can offer to pay it back within 12 months, that 'should' be reasonable.
If you can't do that 18 months isn't bad.
Two years or more and I'd be sending a statement of affairs (use a tool like this: https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/financecalculators/soa.php) to show why it's reasonable given my income and costs. 

I know it's obvious, but one thing you shouldn't do is put yourself into debt (and paying interest) to pay it back. Open communication and honesty is the answer to this mistake  

Spencer2299

Thanks everyone - appreciate your responses.
I genuinely thought I had overpaid at first…I think that was more hope getting in the way of reality. 

ArbitraryRandom

Just occurred to me, you should probably also check you're still paying the right amount. If you and they both thought you had accumulated a large balance overpaying then they might have reduced your payments to avoid it happening again?

GDB2222

Spencer2299 said:

Thanks everyone - appreciate your responses.
I genuinely thought I had overpaid at first…I think that was more hope getting in the way of reality. 

It's good of you to be so appreciative, as the advice you have been given by several well-meaning posters is incorrect. 

It depends whether you acted in good faith and truly believed that you had overpaid the £10k. If you did, and you have now spent the money on a car, you do not have to repay all of the money. Rather than my trying to explain, take a look here:
https://3vb.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Avoiding-the-inevitable-w-037-7431-1.pdf

 

Spencer2299

We have bought it so just service charge going out. 

ArbitraryRandom

GDB2222 said:

Spencer2299 said:

Thanks everyone - appreciate your responses.
I genuinely thought I had overpaid at first…I think that was more hope getting in the way of reality. 

It's good of you to be so appreciative, as the advice you have been given by several well-meaning posters is incorrect. 

It depends whether you acted in good faith and truly believed that you had overpaid the £10k. If you did, and you have now spent the money on a car, you do not have to repay all of the money. Rather than my trying to explain, take a look here:
https://3vb.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Avoiding-the-inevitable-w-037-7431-1.pdf

 

I would suggest that we are not 'incorrect' - simply that there is a possible (contentious) defence should the OP wish to argue the matter in court.

In the case you present, the differing points from this example are that the received of sum (the back to back payments) were 'routine and objectively foreseeable' and made under the terms of the contract. 

Further, I suggest if the OP is able to afford to make the repayments, then it would not be inequitable to make restitution (hence the suggestion they consider a payment plan and submit an SOA if it's for over a longer term). 

I would suggest the (more well known) case of Kelly v Solari is the closer comparator: 

"[If the money] is paid under the impression of the truth or a fact which is untrue, it may, generally speaking, be recovered back, however careless the party paying may have been, in omitting to use due diligence to inquire into the fact. In such a case the receiver was not entitled to it, nor intended to have it." 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_v_Solari

(And a reminder for the OP that nothing posted on the forum should be taken as legal advice. It is our opinions only)

GDB2222

ArbitraryRandom said:

GDB2222 said:

Spencer2299 said:

Thanks everyone - appreciate your responses.
I genuinely thought I had overpaid at first…I think that was more hope getting in the way of reality. 

It's good of you to be so appreciative, as the advice you have been given by several well-meaning posters is incorrect. 

It depends whether you acted in good faith and truly believed that you had overpaid the £10k. If you did, and you have now spent the money on a car, you do not have to repay all of the money. Rather than my trying to explain, take a look here:
https://3vb.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Avoiding-the-inevitable-w-037-7431-1.pdf

 

I would suggest that we are not 'incorrect' - simply that there is a possible (contentious) defence should the OP wish to argue the matter in court.

In the case you present, the differing points from this example are that the received of sum (the back to back payments) were 'routine and objectively foreseeable' and made under the terms of the contract. 

Further, I suggest if the OP is able to afford to make the repayments, then it would not be inequitable to make restitution (hence the suggestion they consider a payment plan and submit an SOA if it's for over a longer term). 

I would suggest the (more well known) case of Kelly v Solari is the closer comparator: 

"[If the money] is paid under the impression of the truth or a fact which is untrue, it may, generally speaking, be recovered back, however careless the party paying may have been, in omitting to use due diligence to inquire into the fact. In such a case the receiver was not entitled to it, nor intended to have it." 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_v_Solari

(And a reminder for the OP that nothing posted on the forum should be taken as legal advice. It is our opinions only)

Advice that fails to mention the change of position defence is, at best, incomplete. 

Clearly, Kelly v Solari applies, as it is at the heart of any claim the Housing Association has for return of the money. Equally, change of position applies as a perfectly valid defence against full repayment if the facts of the matter support it.

I doubt that anyone would want to take this to court. The HA would be shown up as being incompetent. The amount involved does not justify the cost of what would be a rather complicated case. Both sides would be wise to negotiate, and the change of position defence would be part of the deal. 

If the HA proves intransigent during negotiations, the OP can repay in full to avoid court action. However, that’s very different from the original advice on this thread. 

ArbitraryRandom

GDB2222 said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

GDB2222 said:

Spencer2299 said:

Thanks everyone - appreciate your responses.
I genuinely thought I had overpaid at first…I think that was more hope getting in the way of reality. 

It's good of you to be so appreciative, as the advice you have been given by several well-meaning posters is incorrect. 

It depends whether you acted in good faith and truly believed that you had overpaid the £10k. If you did, and you have now spent the money on a car, you do not have to repay all of the money. Rather than my trying to explain, take a look here:
https://3vb.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Avoiding-the-inevitable-w-037-7431-1.pdf

 

I would suggest that we are not 'incorrect' - simply that there is a possible (contentious) defence should the OP wish to argue the matter in court.

In the case you present, the differing points from this example are that the received of sum (the back to back payments) were 'routine and objectively foreseeable' and made under the terms of the contract. 

Further, I suggest if the OP is able to afford to make the repayments, then it would not be inequitable to make restitution (hence the suggestion they consider a payment plan and submit an SOA if it's for over a longer term). 

I would suggest the (more well known) case of Kelly v Solari is the closer comparator: 

"[If the money] is paid under the impression of the truth or a fact which is untrue, it may, generally speaking, be recovered back, however careless the party paying may have been, in omitting to use due diligence to inquire into the fact. In such a case the receiver was not entitled to it, nor intended to have it." 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_v_Solari

(And a reminder for the OP that nothing posted on the forum should be taken as legal advice. It is our opinions only)

Advice that fails to mention the change of position defence is, at best, incomplete. 

Clearly, Kelly v Solari applies, as it is at the heart of any claim the Housing Association has for return of the money. Equally, change of position applies as a perfectly valid defence against full repayment if the facts of the matter support it.

I doubt that anyone would want to take this to court. The HA would be shown up as being incompetent. The amount involved does not justify the cost of what would be a rather complicated case. Both sides would be wise to negotiate, and the change of position defence would be part of the deal. 

If the HA proves intransigent during negotiations, the OP can repay in full to avoid court action. However, that’s very different from the original advice on this thread. 

accepted M'lud.