Hi,

I’m wondering if anyone has any ideas about a case of mine. The client has a 12 yr old Housing Benefit claim and was treated as cohabiting with 3 people at the early stages of her claim, she subsequently received a lot less Housing Benefit than she was entitled to. The client doesn’t seem to have ever lodged an appeal against this.

She has now contacted me to dispute the living together decision – with may even be 3 non-dependant deduction decisions. I know that it is miles outside the normal appeal deadline, but with the statement of reasons loophole I’m wondering if I can use this to appeal.

I know that there may be a problem with evidence as it may not be kept by the Local Authority this long, so I know this may be a long shot.

I have also considered complaining and asking for compensation / ex gratia payments.

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!!

The loophole definitely exists - although the DWP are trying to close it.

Reg references are to the Working Age regs.

Ask for the SoR under HBR 90 & CTBR 76. There is (currently) no time limit on such a request and never has been.

If the LA provides it, the loophole allows an appeal to be made to a FtT within 14 days of the SoR. The loophole currently exists courtesy of Schedule 1 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008.

link: www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/uksi_20082685_en_1

What if the LA refuses, or simply can't provide a SoR? I'd probably try and argue that without a SoR, the decision can be of no effect. In support of this, I'd argue by analogy pointing out the Tribunal decisions have been set aside where SoRs either haven't been provided, or there is a question about what has been provided e.g. (CH/4066/2007 (paras 1-3); CH/2912/2007 (paras 4-6)).

Hope this helps.

Thank you, that helps a lot!!

can you tell me the loophole please. i have a 12 yr old case to

Rule 23 and Schedule 1 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008 - link above.

In short, for HB/CTB, there is currently no time limit for requesting a statement of reasons from a LA in relation to a decision on HB/CTB. So, if a SoR has not previously been provided, and one is requested now (no matter how many years later), the LA must still provide it.

The argument is that Schedule 1, probably unintentionally, allows an appeal to be made within 14 days of a SoR being issued.

To re-open this discussion, I've just dealt with a case where a LA has refused to provide a statement of reasons. I'm asking the tribunal to hear the case on the grounds that Schedule 1, para 1(b) of th tribunal rules says that the request for a statement of reasons reopens the right to appeal and the period when an appeal can be made only ends 2 weeks after the authority has provided it.

I requested and received a statement of reasons and made my appeal, but in the Local Authority's submission they have stated that the appeal was a late appeal which it wasnt due to this loophole.

I think the Local Authority realised their mistake and actually settled the case without having to go to Tribunal.

Chris, there may be a further strand to the argument where a LA refuses to issue a SoR. In brief, the whole argument goes like this - feel free to adopt any, all, or none of the following (HB regs; working age, cited):

- where a statement of reasons is requested in accordance with HBR 90, it must be provided by the LA. This is echoed in DAR 10

- the LA has no legal basis on which to refuse to provide a SoR; it is a mandatory requirement.

- it is submitted that the refusal of "X" Council to produce such a statement is unlawful, an abuse of process and is prejudicial to me/my client as it prevents me/him/her from being able to exercise his/her lawful right to make a formal appeal against the decision(s) in question.

- there is no time limit, for HB/CTB, within which a SoR may be requested, whether in the relevant Regulations, or otherwise.

- in at least two cases where Tribunals failed to produce appropriate statements of reasons for their decisions, Social Security Commissioners have subsequently found the Tribunal decisions to be of no force or effect - see CH/2912/2007 & CH/4066/2007.

- it is submitted that where a LA fails to produce a SoR, the related decisions must suffer the same fate as the Tribunal decisions referred to above.

- Rule 23(5) of the First-tier Tribunal....Rules, in conjunction with Schedule 1 to the same Rules, provides that an appeal may be made within 14 days of the date on which a SoR is sent. That time limit may be extended by a further 12 months in some circumstances.


I note in your case Chris you have attempted to bypass the LA. There is some support to this approach in R(H) 1/07 - para 34.

Why so helpful? Simple; I'm tired of those LAs who think benefits legislation is nothing more than some form of starting point for negotiation.

I too am tired of LAs to whom you say, "But how does this fit within the Regulations?", and who then reply (it happened), "Well yes of course we know about the guidelines, but in practice..."

GUIDELINES?

Me too, im also impressed (not) with an La that says, for instance, "yes we know what the regs say but we have a policy..." etc.

"Guidelines"
"Policy"
"Guidance"
"Circulars"
"Procedures"
"We don't do it like that here"
"Daily Mail articles"

Any others?

"we are looking to do that in future"

"our software doesnt do that"

"we are awaiting the Dwp to make a decision and we will follow it"

"we used to do it that way but changed following the memo of..."

"we've never done it that way before"

I have plenty more...

"and every notice shall include a statement as the matters set out in schedule 9"

Not...

Here is a pdf document outlining the legal position.

Hope it helps.

Mark

http://sn.im/sukpm-w6s