Direction to Parties

Hi all

Client attended appeal mid Feb. Appeal was adjourned for the following:

Directions to Parties

X For a Presenting Officer to attend the adjourned hearing.

x The appellant and/or her representative is to file any supporting further evidence to the Tribunal Service at least 14 days prior to the adjourned hearing

My client, who attended the hearing on her own, I don’t have funding to attend, was told by the Judge that her rep had to attend and if the rep didn’t attend then the adjouned hearing would not go ahead.

Judge insisted to my client that the Presenting Officer was her rep (Me!).

I have always understood a Presenting Officer to be a representative from the DWP. The directions I’ve received are as above. Have I misunderstood who a Presenting Officer is.

I’m not sure what to do now. I called the Tribunal Service and they agreed that a Presenting Officer should be from the DWP.

Can a rep be ordered to be at a hearing?

Thanks

Hi,

You have not misunderstood the direction or who a PO is at all. You are the rep, the PO represents the DWP - both are there to assist the tribunal. You are not mandated to attend although in some cases a judge may request that you do - if you can - if the complexity of the case warrants your attendance.

Could this be a case of the client misunderstanding the judge?

Since 2008 a tribunal has the power to force any person to attend.  On refusal a person can be fined or even imprisoned.  This must be done by way of a summons which must be in (not on) a particular form.  Without seeing the document, it sounds as though none of the procedural requirements have been met and, therefore, the rep’ is, at present, probably under no compulsion to attend.  Adjourning further might fall foul of the duty to avoid undue delay.

My client’s relatives were one of the main reasons why his HB claim was refused. I think the appeal will have to go to tribunal as the LA won’t change their mind. I just wanted to check whether or not the tribunal can compel my client’s relatives to be witnesses?

I don’t think they will agree to be witnesses as the questioning will shine a light on some dubious financial arrangements, but as they were the main cause of the problems I’m not sure there is much of case without their input. I can’t imagine that a written statement from me about what happened will be as persuasive as the judge being able to ask the relatives questions directly.

In a nutshell, a large amount of money was transferred to the relatives which they supposedly paid back to him in a weekly allowance. A year or so after the transfer they tried to claim HB for him but it was refused due to the transfer. Two years have now passed and the relatives say the money they were looking after has nearly all gone, but they can’t prove that they have given any money back to my client because they paid him in cash. The relatives are his only support network so it’s quite a delicate situation, but notional capital will remove his HB entitlement for at least a couple of years if he doesn’t pursue an appeal.

Would it not be more appropriate to have this discussion on the other thread that you started on the subject some time ago?