Sier, R (on the application of) v Cambridge City Council Benefit Review Board

For the official-error exception to recovery of housing-benefit overpayments, causation must be assessed in light of the legislative purpose of the exception. The question is whether the overpayment resulted from a wholly uninduced administrative error, or whether the claimant caused or materially contributed to the mistake by failing to disclose a relevant change of circumstances. An administrative failure may constitute an official error without being the cause of the overpayment. Where the overpayment results from the claimant’s continuing claim and breach of the duty to report, the exception does not apply and the overpayment remains recoverable.

The appellant received housing and related benefits for properties in Cambridge and London, although he was entitled to benefit only for the London property. The local authority’s Review Board decided that the overpayments were recoverable. On judicial review, Richards J held that the Department of Social Security’s failure to send information about the cessation of Income Support could amount to an official error, but had not caused the overpayment. The appellant appealed on the issue of causation. The Court of Appeal also considered the appellant’s duty to notify changes in circumstances and the scope of the official-error exception.

1. Appeal dismissed. The overpayments remained recoverable, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s assessed appeal costs, subject to the order stated.
2. Regulation 99(2) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 relieves a claimant from repayment only where the overpayment was caused by official error and the claimant could not reasonably have been expected to realise that it was an overpayment. Under regulation 99(3), the relevant question is whether the overpayment was caused by an administrative mistake for which the claimant did not cause or materially contribute.
3. Causation is an elastic concept. Its application depends upon the purpose and scope of the rule under which responsibility is being attributed. The legislative purpose here was to distinguish overpayments resulting from uninduced administrative error from those substantially attributable to the claimant.
4. The failure to send the NHB8 form could amount to official error, but it did not cause the overpayment. The payments continued because the appellant continued to claim Cambridge benefits and failed, contrary to regulation 75 of the 1987 Regulations, to notify the Council of his move to London and related benefit claim. The official failure merely meant that the Council was not alerted to the change.
5. Simon Brown LJ expressed the same conclusion through a single composite inquiry: whether the overpayment resulted from wholly uninduced official error or from the claimant’s own failings. Mantell LJ agreed with the dismissal.

• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court): Richards J dismissed the judicial review challenges on 28 February 2001. The court held that the failure to send form NHB8 could be an official error but was not the cause of the overpayment.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed with costs.