× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Decision making and appeals  →  Thread

Tribunal decision 12.08.14, DWP decision 15.08.14 - which decision stands???

Nianne
forum member

Solicitor, Stephensons Solicitors, St Helens

Send message

Total Posts: 8

Joined: 18 June 2010

Wondering if anybody has come across this situation before…..

I have been assisting a client with a JSA appeal in relation to various issues involving capital and wife’s alleged earnings as an ebay seller.

The case has been before various tribunals which have been adjourned for a variety of reasons.

The Tribunal made a decision on 12.06.14 to adjourn the appeal to allow my client to meet with a DWP rep in an attempt to bring the matter to a conclusion. My client was directed to provide various receipts and expenses to the DWP so that the case can be refered to a DM for a further decision. The appeal was allowed in part that the tribunal accepted that our client did not have capital and that this was held on trust for his son. However, the client needed to provide the ebay details before a decision could be made in relation to that.

Well the DWP failed to correspond with my client even though he provided all the details and therefore a new hearing was heard on 12.08.14. This was heard before a different Judge and a new decision was made to disallow the appeal entirely, revoking any earlier decisions.

However, the DWP being DWP have since corresponded with the client on 15.08.14 dealing with the Tribunal decision of 12.06.14 accepting the expenses and reduced an overpayment to £60.55. Our client has since paid off this overpayment.

I am unsure as to which decision would stand. Would the DWP have to stick by their latest decision or could they receive the latter decision from the tribunal and revise their decision accordingly.

I am unsure as to which decision would lapse.

Wondering if anybody has come across this and any suggestions as to next steps I could take?

I am looking at requesting the SOR of the decision 12.08.14 in any event to safeguard client’s appeal rights…..

nevip
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Sefton Council, Liverpool

Send message

Total Posts: 3135

Joined: 16 June 2010

From the information you give it seems that the decision of 12/6/14 was not a decision which disposes of proceedings under rule 27 of the First-tier Tribunal Rules.  Thus the “allowed in part” bit would not, in my view, bind the tribunal that reconvened and did dispose of the proceedings under rule 27.  It’s possible that the tribunal’s decision of 12/8/14 be superseded by the DWP if it “was made was made in ignorance of, or was based upon a mistake as to, some material fact” under reg 6 of the D&A Regs.  Best go for the SOR as well for potential errors of law.

Nianne
forum member

Solicitor, Stephensons Solicitors, St Helens

Send message

Total Posts: 8

Joined: 18 June 2010

Thank you both your help.

I agree with your views and do think that I need to request the SOR. I have already advised the client of the possibilities and asked him to let me know if he hears anything further from DWP.

I’ll hang fire on the SOR request for now and see what happens….

Thanks

past caring
forum member

Welfare Rights Adviser - Southwark Law Centre, Peckham

Send message

Total Posts: 1116

Joined: 25 February 2014

Agree with what both nevip and Tony have advised but just wondering about this bit….

Nianne - 22 August 2014 10:46 AM

Well the DWP failed to correspond with my client even though he provided all the details and therefore a new hearing was heard on 12.08.14. This was heard before a different Judge and a new decision was made to disallow the appeal entirely, revoking any earlier decisions.

However, the DWP being DWP have since corresponded with the client on 15.08.14 dealing with the Tribunal decision of 12.06.14 accepting the expenses and reduced an overpayment to £60.55. Our client has since paid off this overpayment.

and the precise process whereby the appeal came back to be heard before a new tribunal on 12/8/2014? In other words, was there anything in the directions issued by the 12/6/2014 tribunal that you could use to argue that the 12/8/2014 hearing should not have gone ahead and thereby get the later decision set aside? A bit crafty, I know, and you may be up against it if you actually attended the 12/8/2014 hearing and didn’t raise any objections to the appeal going ahead at the time, but maybe worth a punt…..

Because if you do end up asking for a SOR, it doesn’t matter whether you leave it until the last moment or not, the DWP will certainly receive a copy - and I would put the odds of it then using the tribunal’s decision to supersede its own later, more favourable decision, as being quite considerable.

MichelleT
forum member

Welfare Department, Stephensons Solicitors, Leigh

Send message

Total Posts: 7

Joined: 27 August 2014

Hi all

We have had further developments on this one and are still equally as puzzled.

We have received a decision from the Tribunal that the hearing on 12/08/2014 has been set aside.

Would DWP’s decision of 15/08/2014 now stand and subsequently could we withdraw the appeal all together?

Grateful for any ideas on this one…

past caring
forum member

Welfare Rights Adviser - Southwark Law Centre, Peckham

Send message

Total Posts: 1116

Joined: 25 February 2014

Two things;

1) Difficult to answer without knowing why the tribunal’s decision was set-aside. The tribunal (or the judge who made the set-aside decison) does have to provide reasons…..

2) As the later DWP decision was clearly more favourable than the tribunal’s decision, you need to be sure that the set-aside does not now mean that the appeal is to be re-listed - if this is the case, you probably need to think about withdrawing the appeal. That said, before withdrawing I’d want to be sure that the DWP hasn’t (or isn’t intending) to revise its decison in light of what the tribubnal decided.

As point 2) perhaps illustrates, it’s very difficult to advise without knowing exactly why the tribunal’s decison has been set-aside.