Misleading Information

Of late I have seen letters from Trafford BDC stating to clts they are going to claw back social fund loans they had quite a few years ago. When I have read these letter in there entirety I have noticed a lack of complete information within them.

They set out quite clearly that the clt can go to the CAB and or a Solicitor. However what they do not set out or make clear at all - because the information is not there - is that the client can go to Independent Review Service - who replaced the Social Fund Commisioner.

As SF Loans are not appealable, I find it strange that the DWP should deny clts access to this service especially when in [2014] UKUT 224 (AAC) - ‘the Information fails to adequately explain the relevant procedures. The passage in question needs to be rewritten primarily with the user in mind, and not the convenience of the administration.’

If any member of the DWP happen to read this, please amend the letters you send out reflecting the fact claimants can use the IRS.

Are you sure?

Inspectors here at the IRS will not be able to make any review decisions after the end of July 2013. So we will only have a limited amount of time to deal with your case. Don’t forget that Jobcentre Plus must have reviewed your decision first, before it can be looked at here at the IRS

from their website

Furthermore, “you cannot request a review of a decision relating to repayment terms or recovery” (CPAG p769, although you can try to negotiate the weekly repayment rate).  If you believe that there is no outstanding loan you can ask them to prove it, or take legal action to get them to prove it.

The independent case examiner replaced the IRS for the 2nd tier review but as nevip says repayment terms can only be renegotiated

My apologies I mean the ICE.

My point is and was this information that you can go to the ICE was not included in any of the letters provided to the clts, surely it must be?

It is not enough to say just go to the CAB or Solicitor, when there IS another avenue for the clts to explore.

The deficit of information surely raises some pertinent issues?

I have found ICE to be a dead end. They’re all about whether the correct administrative process was followed rather than a reassessment of the outcome. So, provided every stupid decision was made inside the relevant deadline and in line with relevant guidelines then all is well with the world!!!

Thanks for that. However my point is should the ICE’s details be on the letter’s they send out?

As I mentioned in my original post Judge Wikely found that the information sent from HMCTS was deficient and thus ruled for a rehearing. Although that can’t happen with the SF, can one appeal to HMCTS about the letters being deficient on a point of law?

No.  Decisions and Appeals Regulations 1999, schedule 2, paragraph 23.

23.  A decision of the Secretary of State under section 78 of the Administration Act relating to the recovery of social fund awards.

We do not wish to argue about recovery, we wish to state that the deficiency of information provided in the letter is breach of natural justice and I think this is a valid point. Clts must be informed of ALL their rights surely? In the original post Judge Wikely states that if there is a deficiency in information it can constitute a breach of NJ. This is my point.

That was a case where the tribunal had jurisdiction, and ambiguity on its part made it arguable that the appellant did not get a fair hearing.  That distinguishes it.  Here the tribunal simply has no jurisdiction whatsoever as budgeting loan decisions are simply not appealable to a tribunal.  Any remedy would have to be by way of judicial review.