I made a late appeal for client who lost PC because she was deemed to be in a civil partnership. Appeal was made and accepted within 13 month period. Three months later still awaiting submission. When I phoned I was told they were having difficulty getting papers and it looks as if the information and reasons for decision have been destroyed, and this within the 14 month period they say they keep records for.

The liason officer I spoke to(after complaint in a measured rant) said he's been in touch with appeals and they want to visit the client now to put together a case. I had another rant at that and told them no way because present situation says nothing of circumstances at the decision time. Am I right to be sus of their motives. If they can't produce details of the decision appealed against can I push that they can't justify that decision and it should be overturned.

Really chewed with this case. Firmly believe client is not a civil partner and thats because since decision other person is now on reduced income of ICB and claiming as a couple would clear all their financial problems. Mortgage costs part of assessment. When I put to them possibly claiming as a couple under duress they were adamant they would not claim under false pretences and they were not a couple.

I too would be (highly) suspicious of the motives for the visit on the basis of the situation as outlined.

However, I don't think you can get a decision overturned simply because papers are no longer available. The relevance is what weight should be attached to the AVAILABLE evidence (including your client's statement(s)). Depending on the circumstances, there may be occasions where it is appropriate to ask a Tribunal to draw inferences from the failue of the DWP (or an LA) to produce relevant dodumentation. But, I'm not sure this course of action is justified in this case.

The best course of action, in my view, is to pursue the appeal and try and make mince meat (er, a new technical term) of the DWP's position. Without papers, the DWP will have a much tougher job to support the basis of their decision. That's their problem.

NB: It never ceases to amaze me that the DWP (and LAs) think that the disposal of papers is acceptable in relatively short periods of time. It's just stupid.

Ophelia lol!.

Not unless there is suspicion they lost them on purpose! However, it may make it hard for them to prove what they need to prove, especially if there is strong oral evidence.

Not entirely off the topic - does anyone else share my view that the sexual orientation of the alleged "living together as civil partners" couple has to be crucial to the issue of whether it is even remotely possible that they are?

does anyone else share my view that the sexual orientation of the alleged "living together as civil partners" couple has to be crucial to the issue of whether it is even remotely possible that they are?

"Crucial"? Not necessarily. Isn't there a CD where the Cmmr noted that a sexual relationship is one of many components, albeit a potentially rather important component?

I agree with Kevin. A sexual relationship isn't conclusive that LT applies. One of the biggest laughs I had was coming across DM guidance on multiple relationships which said if a claimant was living under the same roof with two or more others and declared a sexual relationship with both or all then LTAHAW could'nt apply.

In the case I posted DWP have been back to say they intend visiting the couple because a recent PC claim has been made and they need to verify on details required for possible year backdate. I think thats a crock. All details of income and savings have been submitted and there seems no earthly reason for the visit other than to fish for detail on LTACP to save their own faces on appeal.

I would be present at any visit to record what goes on for obvious reason but I've put to them that they should hold off visit until appeal and that should be expedited soonest - especially as chair allowed late appeal Nov 07. They are insisting on visit. If I told them to politely get stuffed presumably they'd dump new claim on grounds client failed to provide info. Bum!

Any thoughts welcome

i rather agree with ariadne. sexual orientation isn't the same as sexual relationship. imo the enacting of the civil partnership legislation doesn't give grounds for same sex friends who regard themselves as heterosexual to be treated as a couple, and i'd be concerned if this approach is taken. LTAHAW decisions could never be given in cases where the 'couple' in question could not legally marry, eg brother and sister, and civil partnerships are perceived and regarded as 'marriage' equivalents for lesbian and gay. (i think there was some consideration to including other types of relationships in the legislation at some stage, because the financial and property rights could benefit some people in other types of long term relationship, but i believe those issues were to be given further consideration for separate legislation.) i don't believe a LTACP decision could rightly be given against a couple who _would_ not contemplate entering into a civil partnership, for reasons of their sexual orientation.

sorry - to avoid confusion, i used 'couple' in the last sentence to mean only 'two people'.

i also agree with ariadne on that particular issue.

i think the real problem is that the civil partnership stuff makes it really difficult for people to just "share" a house as friends, whatever their actual sexual orientation - which is presumably why the OP's clients are having the problem they are having!

Fri 21-Mar-08 12:45 PM by iut044

I know that in theory it is not necessairly essential to be deemed to be in a sexual relationship to be treated as living together.

However, have any couple who have not deemed to be in a sexual relationshp actually been classified as living together?