Decisions being stayed behind AT inappropriately?

We had a case referred to us the other day where a claim made in November was stayed behind AT.

In our opinion it was being stayed inappropriately as client appeared to have a qualifying right to reside.

We escalated to local resolution team while gathering evidence to demonstrate this but before we could supply any further evidence, our (very helpful) escalation contacts got our request to the right people and a positive entitlement decision was issued.

In this case the HRT interview took place promptly after the claim was made and clearly gathered sufficient information to determine she was entitled so why on earth was it stayed behind AT?

Are all claims from people with pre-settled status being stayed regardless of their individual circumstances?

Another excellent summary of issues arising from SSWP v AT from the EU Right and Brexit Hub, and directly relevant to your question, along with examples of inappropriate stays that they have seem ...

Alice Welsh and Charlotte O’Brien submitted the following as a memo to the Independent Monitoring Authority and the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee on 29th June 2023 to highlight the increase in cases seen at the Hub where DWP have inappropriately used its power to stay cases while waiting for a final decision in SSWP v AT, on the applicability of Charter Rights.

Key asks from their experiences so far include -

- Where DWP decide to stay a case due to AT, the communication to individuals should be clear and set out exactly why the decision to stay has been made…
- Specific decision maker guidance on decisions to stay in SSWP v AT should be provided by DWP…
- The DWP should publish statistics on the number of decisions to stay as a result of SSWP v AT and how may of these stays have been lifted…

More: Memo: The decision in SSWP v AT and the inappropriate use of powers to stay decisions from the EU Rights and Brexit Hub.

Just had my first post AT CoA FtT hearing stayed again.

And just had yet another inappropriate stay (client has a qualifying r2r which DWP have missed)

Dan Manville - 04 January 2024 01:20 PM

Just had my first post AT CoA FtT hearing stayed again.

If this is a case where the Appellant is still in the situation that they do not have sufficient resources (ie arguable ongoing dignity breach) then I really struggle to see how an FTT staying pending UKSC is appropriate - it must at least arguably be a further Charter breach to do so.

Dan - feel free to email me or call if you want to discuss.

Martin.

UKSC has now refused permission to appeal so all these stays should be lifted and the SSWP / FTT should get on with applying the judgment.

And a hoard of us breathe a sign of relief!

Ed: it’s funny really cuz only this morning I said to a colleague “lets wait for the outcome in AT” before delivering some training. At the back of my mind came “I must check RN”