I am pretty sure I read a commissioner's decision recently concerning the right of an appellant to be represented by the individual of his/her choice as opposed to the organisation as a whole for which the rep' works.

I need this decision soon and would be grateful if anyone could point me in the right direction.

Many thanks
Paul

Its not a Comms decision but the High Court held in R v Social Security Commissioner ex Parte Bibi that 'it is hardly unreasonable that a party...should want the person with whom she has been dealing to represent her.' It then went on to say 'I appreciate that there is no absolute right to representation but there is a right to be dealt ith fairly.' Its also worth noting that this was before the Human Rights Act.

The opposite point was made in CSDLA/90/98 where C. May said very definitely that appellants were rep'd by the Local Authority and not an individual WRO. He even went on to say that if all the WROs are off sick (or had recently died, as was apparently the case here!) then the LA should arrange it through their legal dept or contract it out.

I think both the above are accepted as being obiter but, ignoring that, I presume that the High Court case would hold precedent as it was more recent. Again, the HRA will come in to play.

I am also running a case where this is an issue. I was off sick on the day of the hearing and couldn't rep. We asked for postponement but this was refused on the basis that we 'refused to provide anyone even to attend to argue for an adjournment'. The case had already been before the Commissioners twice and, since then had been adjourned by a Chairman, for, shall we say, reasons that are difficult to understand. Set aside refused so now at Comms for 3rd time.

Thanks for your post, gave me a good excuse for a rant! If you can't find the case I think I have a copy that I could fax, but I have a feeling its been put up on the old version of Rightsnet.

bibi is @ http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/bibi.rtf

I have recently put together a submission for hearing at TAS (as the Local Authority), in a HB case involving the HB claimant's ability to pick whatever representative he wanted. My case was (briefly),

Person (Benefit claimant) with severe learning difficulties refused HB - Person had no involvement with Court of Protection nor appointee etc. - Landlord wanted to represent benefit claimant, made appeal etc, (just getting claimant to sign).

I considered that the landlord had too much of a conflict of interest to also rep for person, and wanted to draw this matter to the attention of the Tribunal, before it had started, perhaps for directions etc. The law I referred the Tribunal to was, (copied directly from submission):

" CSHC/729/2003 – (attached at appendix 2) - This decision considered in what circumstances a Tribunal could, and/or should, and/or whether, become involved in deciding who should act as the benefit claimant’s representative, where the benefit claimant’s representative was also his landlord, and whether the holding of both of those positions was mutually compatible.

 CSDLA/1019/1999 - (attached at appendix 3) - That decision considered, with an examination of Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the implications of a Tribunal Panel Member perhaps not being impartial. Whilst not directly relevant to the maters discussed in this submission, the local authority considers that the discussion in that Commissioners’ decision, might have a bearing on the issues discussed in CSCH/729/2003.

 CJSA/5100/2100 - (attached at appendix 4) - That decision considered, in limited circumstances, with an examination of Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the implications of a benefit claimant not having ‘equality of arms’ with a ‘Presenting Officer’ of the Department for Work and Pensions. Whilst not directly relevant to the maters discussed in this submission, the local authority considers that the discussion in that Commissioners’ decision, might have a bearing on the issues discussed in CSCH/729/2003. Namely, whether the benefit claimant would have ‘equality of arms’ with his landlord, should his landlord continue to act as his representative."

This might assist you, if you need any of the Commissioner's decisions, please e-mail me:

John@HBSpecialists.org.uk

CSHC/729/2003 is available via rightsnet briefcase

CSDLA/1019/1999 is the gillies case and on the cmmrs site

.... as is CJSA/5100/2100

Thanks to all who replied.

The case is the Bibi case, I remember it now. It's relevance for us in Liverpool is that TAS has decided that the appellant is represented by the organisation and not the individual adviser and will list hearings no later than 6 weeks from receipt of TAS 1.

So if the appellant has put down dates when rep not available on TAS 1 they will be ignored if within the 6 week period.

Apparently one of the clerks has referred to an 'inference' in a CD but was unable to provide the reference. It was his line manager's decision he said.

It all sounds very shaky to me. Is anything similar happening elsewhere?