Restitution Discussion Group Archives
| Sender: |
Steve Hedley |
| Date: |
Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:39:57 +0100 |
| Re: |
New case on the Woolwich principle |
Norwich
City Council v. Stringer, CA 3 May 2000
Available on my website and no doubt elsewhere too.
A financial comedy of errors from Fenland.
Norwich were liable to pay housing benefit, and followed
the usual practice of remitting it straight to the claimant's landlord.
The claimant then moved away but the administrative machine was slow to
spot this. Eventually Norwich claim £150 back from the landlord.
Landlord admits he is responsible for £64 (covering the period where
he realised the claimant/tenant had gone) and pays that, but fights the
claim for the balance. Norwich sue for £150, the landlord counterclaims
for the £64 he has already paid.
Norwich's claim fails, because of their "wholesale failure"
to comply with the statutory rules relating to claims of that sort.
The landlord's counter-claim fails, seemingly on the
ground that Norwich did not so much "demand" their money as ask nicely
for it (?).
Steve Hedley
=============================================== telephone and answering machine : (01223) 334931 Christ's College Cambridge CB2 3BU
FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
messages : (01223) 334900
fax : (01223) 334967
===============================================
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>
»
»
»
»
| For
editorial policy, see here. For the unedited archive, see here. The archive editor is Steve Hedley. |
