HI Everyone i have come across a bit of a mess made by the council. The council have been deducting 3meals charge even though the development only serves 2 meals and always has. This has affected 12 tenants for over several years (I beleive dateing back to 2004). I was appointed in 2008 and in fairness the manager who recevied the notifcations has argued since 2006 that there is a mistake. Anyway i wrote to the council in August 2009 explaining the situation and asking the council to look at the mistake. They have done nothing and have responded by saying they were never told that the development served only 2 meals, which is incorrect as all other tenants are being deducted for 2 meals, just these 12 tenants seemed to be affected. Also they say i am outwith the normal time limit to appeal against the notification for april 2009 and also refused to backdated to 2007 as this was when the mistake was found by the manager but the council did nothing.
Am i too late to appeal or is there any regs i can use? Any suggestions welcome. I beleive it is an offical error but the council refuses to pay up!

regards
Aisha

How about asking for a statement of reasons for each tenant asking the council to explain why they are deducting for three meals when only two are provided.

I think - only think, i would have to research this more if it were my case - that once you have the statement that you have two weeks in which to appeal anything in it.

Nicky

Tue 02-Feb-10 02:53 PM by Kevin D

I agree with the "SoR" approach.

I would assist each and every tenant to ask for an SoR in respect of each and every HB decision made since (and including) the first wrong decision. Assuming a SoR has not previously been provided, the LA is under a statutory duty to provide a SoR - there is no time limit for HB/CTB SoR requests. Bear in mind, SoR requests must be made (and signed) by the person affected.

In turn, a brand new appeal right is generated by the issue of a SoR - there is a right of appeal within 14 days of the SoR (NOT one month). The "late appeal" rule of a further 12 months also kicks in.

In my view, the 14-day "loophole" overrides any time limits that may otherwise have expired, even if years ago.

“Bear in mind, SoR requests must be made (and signed) by the person affected”.

Rule 11(5) of The Tribunal Rules states:

“anything permitted or required to be done by a party under these Rules, a practice direction or a direction may be done by the representative of that party, except signing a witness statement”.

What the Tribunal Rules did for HB (and the relevant HB Regs were amended accordingly) was to align the procedures for HB appeals with DWP appeals which mean that, as with DWP appeals, HB appeals can be made and signed by reps as long as the client has signed an appropriate form of authority.

Kevin, I base my comments on a literal reading of your sentence. My apologies if you did not mean it that far.

Hi Paul,

No apology necessary - but there may be a difference in what is being addressed .

A SoR request, to the LA, must be signed by the person affected - HBR 90(2). I'm not aware of any relaxing of that requirement in those regs. At SoR stage, I can't see how a Tribunal could have jurisdiction. That said, DAR 10 (HB/CTB) sort of duplicates the right to a SoR, but isn't so stringent about the request. Nevertheless, I'd tend to follow the requirements set out in HBR 90.

I (nowadays) have no quibble with the appeal being signed by a third party so long as the accompanying (signed) authority of the person affected is expressly related to the appeal. I have seen wayyy too many cases where "appeals" have been made by a third party purporting to act for a claimant when the clmt has been blissfully unaware an appeal had been made in their name. In fact, I have dealt with just such a case within the past month.

If you can show that the correct information was given to the authority then you can seek a review instead on the grounds of official error. No time limit applies.

If the LA decides there are no grounds to to revise (as opposed to revising but not changing the decision), then I would resort to the SoR approach as described. If they do the revision there will be new appeal rights.