|
Thu 16-Oct-08 05:55 PM by Kevin D
Para 6(3) of Sched 7 (CSPSSA 2000) states that "...any person affected by the decision shall have a right to appeal to an appeal tribunal".
"Person affected" is prescribed by DAR 3.
DAR 20(1)(b) then explicitly requires that an appeal is signed by the person with the right of appeal under para 6(3) of Sched 7 to CSPSSA 2000.
In summary, landlords only have the right of appeal in respect of:
- decisions involving recoverable overpayments; or
- decisions made relating to whether payment(s) of HB should / must be made to landlords.
Years ago, in "Baragrove", the landlord successfully argued that it had sufficient standing to be properly regarded as being a party to that particular case. However, a similar argument was not accepted in "Crookes".
Both of the above cases took place several years before the introduction of the current definition of "person affected". In CH/136/2007, Cmmr Williams took a view (obiter) that the current definition of "person affected" would probably have prevented Baragrove from being a party to proceedings.
Earlier this year, a LA had over 50 appeals which had not been signed by the person with the right of appeal. The L/L had compiled the appeals and relied on general authorisations saying it could act on behalf of the claimants. The Tribunal rejected those appeals on the grounds that they had not been signed by the person affected.
In the 90s, a London based L/L was known to get clmts to sign blank pieces of paper, upon which appeals were subsequently photcopied. Once this was discovered, the LA had no trouble in being able to get the "appeals" refused. As an aside, various persons connected with that L/L were subsequently convicted of a variety of fraud related offences.
|
