Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
PIP - appeal related to 3 judge decision - opinions please!
forgive my ignorance but what is the section 26 notice and can we expect one
Thanks
I had one of these- PIPS started an appeal to the UT about an award of ER Mob. on these grounds. UT stayed the appeal pending the three judge panel’s decision and when this arrived I wrote citing various parts of the decision and last week PIPS asked for (and was granted) permission to withdraw their appeal.
sounds interesting Pete
forgive my ignorance but what is the section 26 notice and can we expect one
Thanks
A Section 26 notice is notice to stay certain appeals as the Sec State is appealing against a decision; in this case against MH, as he told Debbie Abrahams he would be doing during the first debate about the PIP amendments.
Being as he told his shadow that he would be appealing we should be able to expect a S26 notice; there were lots flying around in the wake of IM a few years back but, strangely, such a notice has not materialised regarding MH
There’s a copy of a S26 notice here
[ Edited: 30 Mar 2017 at 12:55 pm by Dan_Manville ]sounds interesting Pete
Letter from UT was dated 17th March but the SoS application was dated 14th Feb so I suspect that even if they wanted a second chance at this appeal the time limit has passed.
The case was about a person whose MH problems preclude them leaving their home town on their own, the Ref is CPIP/3134/206 but as it has been withdrawn I don’t suppose that any part of it will be published
so I may expect a section 26 notice. I assume that though the rules have been amended that only applies to new cases, is that right ? so existing cases could rely on the 3 Judges [ pending the outcome of any appeal by SoS ]. I was bit surprised by the 3 Judge ruling , seemed a little wide in its scope, I expect t will be overturned on appeal. so in the meantime w are still in lib#mbo ?
so I may expect a section 26 notice. I assume that though the rules have been amended that only applies to new cases, is that right ? so existing cases could rely on the 3 Judges [ pending the outcome of any appeal by SoS ]. I was bit surprised by the 3 Judge ruling , seemed a little wide in its scope, I expect t will be overturned on appeal. so in the meantime w are still in lib#mbo ?
There haven’t been any S26 notices issued; I’ve got one of the MH analogues, as has Ross. We were wondering whether the Sec State might have (ahem) changed his mind on appealing…
so I may expect a section 26 notice. I assume that though the rules have been amended that only applies to new cases, is that right ? so existing cases could rely on the 3 Judges [ pending the outcome of any appeal by SoS ]. I was bit surprised by the 3 Judge ruling , seemed a little wide in its scope, I expect t will be overturned on appeal. so in the meantime w are still in lib#mbo ?
There haven’t been any S26 notices issued; I’ve got one of the MH analogues, as has Ross. We were wondering whether the Sec State might have (ahem) changed his mind on appealing…
That certainly seems to what has happened in my case.
so its a waiting game now !!
[ Edited: 30 Mar 2017 at 04:02 pm by SocSec ]Hi!,
all went ahead on Monday and full consideration was given to MH - no Section 26 notice in site.
so this should be standard for all cases, - wasn’t awarded mobility (through other reasons) but they did look at it.
hope this clears things up!
Yes my cse is to be decided by Ut as DWP have agreed existing cases can be decided based on 3 Judge case.
Leave to appeal has been granted in MH according to recently published SSAC minutes from their meeting on 8 March…
‘para 2.8 - James [Bolton (Deputy Director Disability Benefit, Decision Making and Appeals)] further advised the Committee that the Secretary of State had sought leave to appeal against both decisions. Leave had been granted in MH and a decision was awaited in LB.’
Confirmation in new PIP decision [2017] UKUT 152 (AAC) that MH applies to cases decided prior to the new regulations -
‘It has been widely reported that the decision in MH did not represent Parliamentary intention, and new regulations have been made. They came into effect on 16 March 2017, as I understand it. Whilst I do not now need to consider what cases they affect, I can say that they will have no effect on this appeal, which must be conducted by the fresh FTT on the basis that they are bound by the decision in MH, and that point is apparent from the Secretary of State’s submission. There has been no application by the Secretary of State to stay any cases affected by MH pending any further appeal, and MH represents the law up to the point where and insofar as the new regulations change that.’ (paragraph 5)