We are all familiar with the various time limits that bear on apellants but are there any that bear on the Sec of State. My cl. asked for an appeal against an overpayment decison in the spring of 2008 and,according to Debt Management, the decision was reconsidered but not changed in August 2008 (doesn't look like the Cl. was notified either).Since then we have heard nothing, there has been no submission issued to any party and it seems likely that the Trib service don't know about it.

Are there any time limits for them to provide a submission and if they don't defend their decsion within a certain time can we ask a a Tribunal find in favour of the appellant by default?
I've trawled through the appeals regs but all I can find is rules for the appellant.

Thanks

Copied from a recent post:

In R(H) 01/07 (aka CH/2812/2005), it was found the relevant authority (e.g. DWP / LA) could be bypassed if circumstances demanded. Where the DWP or LA simply delays ad-infinitum, I think this authority is ideal.

There is "guidance" that responses (i.e. submissions) are supposed to be done within 28 days. But, I'm not aware of anything in law to support this "guidance".

Rule 24(1)(b) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008 states that “the decision maker must send or deliver a response to the Tribunal……… so that it is received……as soon as reasonably practicable after the decision maker received the notice of appeal”. The problem, obviously, is with the definition of “reasonably practicable”. This will vary from case to case.

Unreasonable delays can attract possible compensation from the ombudsman on natural justice grounds. Unreasonable delay might also be in breach of article 6 of The Human Rights Act 1998 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).

Can you prove the date of the apepal and that it was received in time? What was the date of the decision - are you still within 13 months?
What are the grounds of appeal - that the overpayemnt is not recoverable, that the calculation is wrong or that there was no overpayment?
Has your client ever had a supersession decision - debt recovery only deal with recoverability - and if so was that appealed?

As yet I havn't seen the papers, the DWP are trying to track them down, they have accepted the appeal but have never brought forward a submision.. The appeal was made before I got involved in the case and I don't know the precise grounds for the decision or the reasons given by the cl. for appealing. From what has been said it is about an incorrect declaration made on a new claim for IS. I await the papers with interest as I would like to see how the form was completed, who signed it and so on - there may in fact be case against an organisation other than the DWP. My query was only in the hope that thre was some legal means by which the appeal could be decided in the clients favour by virtue of the unwarranted delay.

I was at a meeting sometime ago when the North West Regional chair (as he was then) said that his organisation had the power to instruct the preparation of a submission if any department was being unreasonable in the delay. He suggested that any representatives wrote to the Tribunal Service if they wanted this to happen.

I have recently dealt with two cases in which the Dept referred a late appeal to the TS which was admitted by the Tribunal Judge and the Dept was asked for a submission, in one case three times.
On the first case the poor PO was sent along on the day of the hearing with the sub, in the second the file apparently came back from the office that had generated the appeal with a noted saying they didn't know anything about it - the judge said the originating referral was on the file and showed quite clearly where it had come from...
This could be good news with an overpayment bearing in mind the burden of proof.