Waveney D C v Jones

Case Overview

1. This is a Court of Appeal case (1999) where Waveney District Council (the Council) appealed a lower court decision that ruled in favour of Mr. Jones, a landlord receiving housing benefit payments on behalf of his tenants. The core issue revolves around the Council’s attempt to recover an alleged overpayment of housing benefit by deducting it from payments owed to Mr. Jones for other properties, without following proper statutory procedures.

Statutory Procedures for Housing Benefit Overpayment Recovery

2. The Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 (“the 1987 Regulations”) outline specific procedures that local councils must follow when recovering overpaid housing benefits. These include notifying the recipient and providing them the right to request a statement of reasons. Crucially, the court emphasises that these are not optional, stating:

3. “It is unnecessary in this case to set out the provisions of Regulations 76 to 83 and Schedule 6 of the 1987 Regulations because it is common ground that the procedure required by the Regulations was not followed by the Council.”

Public Law vs. Private Law Enforcement

4. The Council argued that their obligations under the 1987 Regulations are only enforceable through public law mechanisms, specifically judicial review. They cited precedents like Wyatt v. Hillingdon LBC and Haringey LBC v. Cotter to support the argument that breaches of statutory duty related to benefit payments are not typically grounds for a private law action (like a County Court claim).

5. “Mr. McGuire submits that, where a statutory scheme provides for payments by a public body, and unless the scheme provides otherwise, the obligations of the public body are enforceable only in public law by an application for judicial review.”

Council’s Failure to Follow Procedure

6. The critical point of contention, and the main reason Mr. Jones prevailed, was that the Council did not follow the required statutory procedures before deducting the alleged overpayment. This procedural failure is highlighted as fundamental:

7. “Following the determination that housing benefit had been overpaid, Judge Mellor found that, having failed to follow the procedure, the Council were not ‘entitled to invoke the offset procedures’.”
“In substance, by their defence the Council were seeking to ‘recover’, under the regulations, what they had determined to be an overpayment under the regulations.”

The Impact of Procedural Defects

8. The court found that the Council’s procedural failure effectively deprived Mr. Jones of his opportunity to challenge the overpayment determination through the statutory channels. This is seen as critical, and it justifies the County Court action:

9. “Such an action is also appropriate in present circumstances where the Council have, by their own conduct, deprived the claimant of his opportunity to challenge, under the statutory procedures, the determination by the Council that there has been an overpayment.”

10. “The procedural defect in this case has the same effect as it did in Warwick District Council v Freeman… where a defendant landlord successfully resisted a claim by the Council in the County Court, for the return of housing benefit allegedly overpaid, because of the failure of the Council to follow the procedures under the 1987 Regulations.”

Distinction from Haringey LBC v. Cotter

11. The Council relied heavily on Haringey LBC v. Cotter, which held that the 1987 Regulations provided an exhaustive procedure for enforcing the duties of a local authority in relation to housing benefits and claimants did not have a private right of action. However, the court distinguished Cotter from the present case. In Cotter there was no argument that a determination was not made or that there was a flaw in the review process.

12. “In our judgment the judge reached the correct conclusion. A claimant who seeks to obtain relief must normally follow the procedures set out in the Regulations, as this Court held in Cotter. Where, however, as in this case, the Council have not themselves followed the procedures which they are obliged to follow under the regulations, and have thereby deprived the claimant of the protection and opportunities offered him by the regulations, he is entitled to bring a County Court action.”

13. “Further, there is no allegation that there was a refusal or failure to make a determination at all. There is no allegation of a flaw in the procedure for internal and external review of any determination that was made (cf Warwick DC v Freeman (1994) 27 HLR 616 at 619, 620, where, in respect of a County Court claim for an overpayment, a defence was successfully raised that the local authority had failed to follow the statutory procedure for the determination of the recoverable overpayment under Part XI).”

The ‘Debt Collection’ Analogy

14. The court draws a parallel with a scenario where a Council determines a payment is due, but simply refuses to issue the cheque. The Court suggests that this would be a simple ‘debt collecting exercise’ appropriate for the County Court, and they liken the situation to this due to the Council depriving Mr. Jones of his opportunity for challenge.

15. “It is conceded that if a Council purported to make a payment by cheque of housing benefit they had determined to be due, but declined to sign the cheque, the sum determined to be due would be recoverable in the County Court. That would be a mere debt collecting exercise for which an ordinary action is appropriate.”

Emphasis on Following Procedure

16. The court makes it clear that even if an overpayment has occurred, the Council must adhere to the regulations to have standing in the matter. Their appeal failed because they tried to enforce a deduction without fulfilling their procedural obligations, putting them in a position where they could not use the regulations as a defence in the County Court.

17. “Evidence of compliance by the Council with the statutory procedures they are required to follow, consequent upon a determination that there had been an overpayment, would enable the Council to defeat the County Court claim in circumstances such as the present.”

Conclusion

18. The judgment in Waveney District Council v. Jones reinforces the importance of local authorities adhering to statutory procedures when recovering housing benefit overpayments. While the regulations provide a framework for such recovery, they also establish protections for the recipient, who cannot be denied the opportunity to challenge determinations. The case clarifies that a local authority’s failure to follow the prescribed procedures can open them up to a County Court action, even in the context of a statutory scheme that generally favours public law remedies. The appeal was dismissed.