the tribunal's rejection of the SoS's case (and the onus was on the SoS's) was made in full knowledge that the case had not been made to the tribunal, and whatever facts the DWP have kept up their sleeves relevant to their revision when it was under appeal would not have been _material_ facts in the tribunal's decision to dismiss because burden of proof not discharged. the DWP's failure to produce evidence and substantiate its case were the material facts on which the decision was based. i doubt that a supersession under 6 (2) (c) can be shown to be valid.
Presumably client has another right of appeal against this decision, but the arguments are likely to descend into farce, and who wants to play these silly games...? Maybe a LBA and JR,,,,
the DWP failed to comply with directions, they have failed to comply with the time limits for challenging the decision, it appears to show complete contempt by the Secretary of State for the Tribunal and your client's right to a fair hearing, and may be an abuse of the appeal process (??) and abuse of power (reg. 6 (2) (c)). i doubt purnell would want to sign his name to it, and would bet that unvetted and out of control decision-making is the culprit...there's some determination here to hit your client with an overpayment even after they screwed up their case and lost it - one wonders what is driving them...
|