Reference:

The HB/CTB pensioner time for claiming provisions: Upper Tribunal decision in Leicester City Council v LG, CH/0392/2009.

As this is an upper Tribunal decision, does it have to be followed by LA's - there are one or two that have said they are adhering to the 3 months rule ......

Mike

Hi Mike. This is where I become unreservedly scornful of the DWP. This is why.

CDs/UTDs are unequivocally binding (barring directly contradictory decisions being in existence). However, the DWP has recently sent circular A20/2009 to all LAs, directly addressing CH/0392/2009. Incredibly, the DWP blithely states it is "...at odds with policy intention..." and ...

"In the meantime it is for HB/CTB decision makers to decide how they interpret the regulations in light of this UT decision for relevant Guarantee Credit cases".

In other words, only follow the UTD if you agree with it and don't worry about the legally binding effect it has. Utterly contemptable. But, based on experience when assisting in cases of alleged fraud, an approach that is now wholly unsurprising. At least to me.

As an aside, on an unrelated matter, the DWP has been equally selective in A19/2009 where it states the absolute time limit for HB/CTB appeals is 13 months. Conveniently, this fails to address the 14-day statement of reasons loophole (the amendment from September 2009 does not close this route of appeal).

How on earth does the DWP expect to be respected when it treats the law as if it only applies when it suits?

I've seen the circular the wording of which was, as you say, all but telling LA's to do whatever they thought was best. I thought that UT's were binding but wanted confirmation before mentioning it to my Gov ...

of course they are binding....

i would love to be a fly on the wall of a UT/CA hearing where some hapless barrister was trying to argue to the contrary... incandescent judges are a joy to behold, but only when you are not the one in the wrong...

This reminds me of a few previous threads here...

La's are in a difficult position trying to interpret legislation as is, without "advice" merely saying in the end it is up to you etc.

In my experience this is unproductive for the La, claimants and reps.

Ive not seen anyone get anywhere referring to circulars from the Dwp at a Tribunal but have been on the receiving end when representing for an authority which has systematically ignored well known caselaw.

And the DWP wonder why some of us don't like them very much. If they stopped playing fast and loose with the law it would be a start.

Just found yet another example of (apparent) DWP selectivity. Every month (usually), its Legal Group circulates a bulletin containing the latest UTDs for, specifically, HB & CTB. Many of these UTDs are not available on the Upper Tribunal website.

This month, it is stated that CH/0448/2009 is “Not yet available for publication - we may be applying for permission to appeal further.”

Fair enough. Except...
www.administrativeappeals.tribunals.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=2757

As can be seen from the UT website, the UTD has been available in the public domain since at least 29th Sept 09; more than a month before the distribution of the bulletin (emailed on 5 Nov 09).

Is it *really* coincidence that the DWP has, on three demonstrable occasions, not liked what the law provides and then offered information and advice that is misleading? Even if the there was no *intention* to mislead (which, personally, I find hard to believe), surely it is unarguable that its communications cannot be relied on.

and is also, therefore, on bailii

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2009/176.html

one has to wonder what they mean by "not available for publication"