× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Decision making and appeals  →  Thread

1st Tier Judge making deciding whether error in law on their own decision

‹ First  < 3 4 5

Peter Turville
forum member

Welfare rights worker - Oxford Community Work Agency

Send message

Total Posts: 1659

Joined: 18 June 2010

Perhaps a copy of the grounds the UtT judge has given for granting leave could be posted here (I can’t see they have been posted above already)?

Reading between the lines (I could be wrong!) the UtT may be raising important questions about the DWP procedures for apply sanctions that lead up to an actual decision which might have significance in many other cases?

In my experience its not unknown for a UtT (or even ftT) judge to reject the grounds for appeal made by the claimant / rep. but to identify other grounds having considered the case - their role / approach should be inquisatorial.

Patrick Joseph Hill
forum member

Trafford Benefits Advice Service

Send message

Total Posts: 61

Joined: 15 July 2014

Peter Turville - 12 November 2014 04:39 PM

Perhaps a copy of the grounds the UtT judge has given for granting leave could be posted here (I can’t see they have been posted above already)?

Reading between the lines (I could be wrong!) the UtT may be raising important questions about the DWP procedures for apply sanctions that lead up to an actual decision which might have significance in many other cases?

In my experience its not unknown for a UtT (or even ftT) judge to reject the grounds for appeal made by the claimant / rep. but to identify other grounds having considered the case - their role / approach should be inquisatorial.

Extracts of the UT observations and Directions as requested:

“...it is not clear to me precisely what decision the Secretary of State has made, consequent to finding that the appellant was not actively seeking employment, and therefore what decision the first tier Tribunal was confirming…”

“...The requirement to actively seek employment is a condition of entitlement.  Failure to comply with that condition means that a claimant ceases to be entitled to JSA but does not give rise to a sanction unless the claimant makes a further claim for JSA - see section 19B Jobseekers Act 1995…”

“...on reconsideration the issue was treated as one of entitlement ...but the decision appears to have remained one of sanction.  Did the SSWP have the power to impose a sanction in these circumstances?  What decision did the SSWP take in this case?  Was it a decision to impose a sanction and, if so, on what basis?  Or did the SSWP decide to terminate the award of JSA on the basis that the appellant ceased to be entitled to it?”

                          CASE MANAGMENT DIRECTIONS

1.  The Secretary of State is to provide a written explanation of precisely what decision or decisions have been made as to entitlement of the appellant to JSA, payment of JSA to him and/or sanction, consequent to the decision that the appellant was not actively seeking work…setting out the basis for such decisions…”

2.  .....”

My head hurts.

Thank you.

Patrick.

Patrick Joseph Hill
forum member

Trafford Benefits Advice Service

Send message

Total Posts: 61

Joined: 15 July 2014

Hello,

This is the honest truth and in no way meant to be mischievous but:

Leave to appeal on was denied by a local judge yesterday.  My client, who has no knowledge of the appeals system nor of this thread said, and I quote verbatim:

  “But wasn’t that the same judge who made the appeal decision?  That doesn’t seem fair does it?”

Thank you.

Patrick