Can anyone help me, I have a recollection of a decision where a Commisioner said that it was inherently unlikely that any system for logging claims is infallible and the assertion from the DWP that 'we havn't got it,have no record of recieving it so it wasnt sent' is not to be taken at face value.

I have a feeling that this may have been part of a HB decision but I appear to be getting old and forgetful and I just can't remember the reference (It must be the pressure of the exciting and glamorous lifestyle that all WROs lead!)

Pete.

When the shoe is on the other proverbial foot, it is DWP policy to say that they can prove that they posted a letter, and therefore they assume that it has been delivered. I seem to recall that there is also a Commissioner's decision to that effect which reinforces the DWP postion, which may be the one you also have recollections of. .
What this means in your case of course is that it is up to the DWP to prove that said letter did not arrive - just because they can't find it does show that it was never received. A few of us have examples of corrospondence handed in at a local office managed to be lost between them and the BDC by the couriers. If you start off with the belief that nothing is impossible in the world of DWP you can't really go wrong.....

Thanks for your reply Mike.
I don't think the case I remember did reinforce the DWP's position, quite the opposite. As I recall the commissioner said that Tribunals should be wary of accepting that a letter or form could not have arrived on the strength of a DWP/ Local Authority's assertion that all such letters were invariably logged onto the system and the fact that the particular one wasn't must therefore prove it wasn't recieved

The point about mising post is interesting, s.7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 covers the presumption that anything that was properly posted is deemed to have arrived (and I think HMRC still take that view) but R(G)2/06,in effect , said that in relation to dates of claims the claim can only be made when it is 'recieved' by the appropriate office and the Act of 1978 did not in fact apply in these cases.The appellant lost as it was found that the most likely explanation for the form not arriving was that the Royal Mail had lost it and it was therefore never 'recieved'. It seems to be against natural justice that the DWP seem to have the protection of the 1978 Act but that this protection does not extend to claimants.

R(G)2/06 also clearly establishes that a Royal Mail Opening centre acts as an agent of the DWP and anything recieved at one is deemed to have been recieved by the DWP, I can't see that this wouldn't apply to couriers and it would certainly apply to any actual DWP office.
Given the above I wonder if we should all stop posting things and just take them to the local JC+ and ask for a receipt!!!

".........Given the above I wonder if we should all stop posting things and just take them to the local JC+ and ask for a receipt!!!.."

Where clients have documents attached to claims that require verification, we always advise them to take them to a local office for onward tranmission by courier to their local friendly BDC. If the docs needing verification are personally valuable we also get them to ask the local office to photocopy and hand back the originals.

Getting receipts for said paperwork might be a tad more difficult - in the past we did have a small diplomatic incident in Norwich when that office refused to issue a receipt - but I digress.... I think most offices see it as a public relations exercise even though they don't legally have to give receipts ....

.......and anyway, how can WRA 's even dream of leading exciting lives of excess and debaucery in Cornwall, unless it's drastically changed in the past few years - famous for cabbages and Jethro, not necessarily in that order ........

Thu 25-Jun-09 08:43 AM by trishc

excess and debauchery....... or even exciting and glamourous.... I knew I was in the wrong line of work.......

I'm too old for debauchery!!

and, to assist in the deliberations, the court service rules now state that service is effected by putting the item in the post ... so you can always pray that point in aid of an argument that it was posted therefore must have been received (the difficulty being, of course, that the DWP can do the same... )

Hi everyone, thanks for your help. The appeal was heard yesterday and the judge took the view that it was more probable that the DWP lost the form after recieving it than the Royal Mail failed to deliver it so we succeded.The DWP did not attend,which is a pity in a way as we could have asked them just how infallible their processes for recording incoming mail actually are!

pete.