Just received a decision of Commissioner May CSIS/635/03 (reminder: Scottish decisions are no less binding than English decisions). Mr May decides that purported revision and supersession decisions governing an overpayment are null, void and of no effect. He also finds that it was not open to him to correct the decisions, despite submissions by Counsel for the DWP that he should substitute his own supersession decision on the basis of the facts (which were transparently clear and agreed). I'm sending a copy to Shaun, hoping that he will be kind enough to publish it on this site.

The technical argument is alive and well.

Hi Steven

It is quite interesting that commissioner May has said that. In my case which commissioner Jacobes remitted to the tribunal (CIS1445/2004) and has gone back to him ( again! ) pending Hinchy, he said exactly the opposite, that is, words such as "valid", "effective", " void", " voidable", "nullity" and of "no effect" are slippery words that are better avoided. He went on to say that a defect can be corrected by some later action of DM, leaving the rest of the process intact subject to any further necessary correction, or, if at all it can be corrected, it will be done by starting the whole process again. It seems commissioner May's decision resurrect the question of " what was the wording of the tribunal on the decision"? Look forward to reading it.

A distinguished tribunal chairman once said to me (in jest) "They do say that inconsistency is the hallmark of an independent judiciary."
or words to that effect.

There's many a true word spoken in jest.

posting from home, and hoping my office IT problems of the last fortnight will _really_ be fixed on Monday, and I can get to grips with this tribunal reform white-paper. ( don't want to blow up my little antique printer!)

i'm reeling a little at the proposed abolition of the SS Commissioners, and also surprised that rightsnet did not headline it in the summary, or did i miss something?

was this buried in the white-paper?
have any brains worked out what mission the DCA is on? can anyone point me in the direction of any political analysis of what exactly is afoot?

frankly i would feel less distrustful of the DCA if... oh, the home secretary was less disrectful of the role of the judiciary, lord steyn hadn't been politically ruled out of the house of lords decision on the terrorism 2000 act, and if lord falconer wasn't a personal friend of tony blair.

not that any of this need have any connection with the tribunal white paper, of course. but if we are headed for a consistency of vision, i'd like to know...who's ?

jj

is 'abolition' too strong a word i wonder?

the white paper says -

'Appeals from first instance tribunals in the administrative justice area will go to a new appeals tribunal. This will bring together the jurisdictions of the Social Security and Child Support Commissioners, the Lands Tribunal, the Transport Tribunal and the new upper tier of the reformed tax tribunals.

Within the new appeals tribunal the same assignment principle as set out earlier in respect of the tribunal and judiciary will apply – that is, an individual tribunal appellate judge will only sit in jurisdictions to which he or she has been appointed or assigned. However, we would expect over time that some parts of the appeals tribunal will draw closer together.

For instance, even now, the Social Security Commissioners would welcome the assistance of the kind of expertise held by the Special Commissioners of Income Tax ...'

thanks shawn. my office internet is still down, so still haven't read the paper. i should do so before commenting, but it is fairly inevitable i will read it from a point of view of extreme scepticism. i've seen little evidence from this government to reassure me that the links between social justice, social exclusion and poverty have even been grasped, never mind got onto the balance sheet against cutting costs of service delivery. social injustice, as far as my case load enables me to see, is an acceptable price of central government's risk management.

i recall very well the case made out by the BA which preceded the Soc. Sec Act 1998, which really did abolish adjudication officers, and was an administrative responsibility slasher. i'm not convinced of the benefits of a unified system, when social security appeals are of such high volume and complexity of law.

whether in response to the effects of the 1998 Act, or coincidentally, the OSSCSC seems to really be hitting its stride now, and expertise, imo is a much higher priority than uniformity. i dare say i'll get back on this one.

jj

...following on from the small matter of "unified benefits"...

I have worked in HB/CTB since 1984 (bar a 3 year break) and have done everything from filing to being a stand-in manager.

Any attempt to "unify" the benefits system in its current form will be an unmitigated disaster. I think jj has hit the nail on the head - the sheer complexity makes it a practical impossibility to operate successfully across the different benefits. Taking HB/CTB alone, this board and the HBinfo board are a daily testament to the simple fact that these benefits alone are a nightmare to administer. Any casual perusal of boards for other benefits demonstrates a more or less similar story - the only difference is degree.

One other "small" matter.... computer systems.... I have yet to see any single system which I would regard as being genuinely "good". Given the track record of computer systems being installed in other Government depts (NI / Health Service just for starters), the likelihood of a proper "fit for purpose" (in ALL respects) computer system & associated software being implemented is probably nil.

As for the politics of "consensus", it simply doesn't work. You need to have one person who has a clear understanding of what is needed and is able to bring on board others who have a similar understanding so that no one is left running around (as so often in the case) like the proverbial blue....****...fly. The difficulty with this approach is that you need to be lucky enough in the first instance to have someone who really is good enough.

Erm.... well.....er, that's my second rant of the day over with.

Regards

Thanks very much to Steven Craig, CSIS/635/2003 is now available on rightsnet.