Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
Consent at the UT
A funny thing has just happened to me and I’m wondering whether it’s an admin error.
I am acting for the respondent in an appeal at the UT, however my mandate to act did not travel from the FtT to the UT. They didn’t have me on record.
It’s not the first time that I’ve been in this position and don’t recall ever having issues with consent before so I thought I’d throw it to the floor and see what people thought.
I went through a period of having to provide a separate one for the UT but amended my standard one and have since always had it accepted. Whether it travels is a slightly different question. Generally speaking I have assumed it wouldn’t and always put a further copy of the original in. Rarely had a problem since then unless the original was more than 18 months old for some reason.
Whether it travels is a slightly different question. Generally speaking I have assumed it wouldn’t and always put a further copy of the original in. .
If I’d have brought the appeal that would be a given, but where I’m acting for the respondent it’s surely a different issue.
Either way it’s fixed now.
I’ve had the same experience as Mike - think I was pulled once when I simply assumed the authority would travel and didn’t include the original or get the client to sign the form…..
But I’ve never been in Dan’s situation - SoS has requested a statement in a couple of juicy ones I’ve had but then tactically withdrew (I remember a particularly good one where a FtT judge who also sits in the UT had allowed a right-to-reside appeal where my argument was that the 2006 amendments that precluded jobseeking as a right to reside for Pension Credit unfairly discrimminated against women, as men could claim JSA to age 65, but a 62 year-old woman was stuffed both ways - SoS wouldn’t take the bait).
I would have assumed that in such a case the authority would travel, given the important difference in the situation….
[ Edited: 23 Mar 2017 at 02:39 pm by past caring ]Sorry Dan I was speed reading. Hadn’t truly digested the respondent angle. I suspect it’s just administrative incompetence.
I have a current case where I was rep at the FTT. We won and the SoS has applied to the UT for leave to appeal.
UT wrote to the C to ask for details of his rep if he had one. He contacted me and then replied to give my details so there was no problem, but clearly the original authority was not transferred to the UT.
It’s an odd one. Should be part of the appeal papers which go from TS to UT.
And I can understand the legal/policy need where it is the original appellant who is applying to the UT - after all, they may have had a partial victory (say PIP standard rate both components) and it’s important to be sure that it’s not just the rep going off on one to try to get an even better outcome…..
But where the appellant succeeded at FtT and is now the respondent? You’re effectively asking “You won your appeal with the assistance of your representative, but unless you tell us otherwise, we’re assuming you wish to deal with the UT appeal without their assistance…...”.
We successfully represented a client at FTT in a Housing Benefit case. Some weeks later I received a telephone call from the client, informing me that the local authority had appealed to the UT. I tried to phone the UT to enquire why I hadn’t received any documents about this and they wouldn’t even speak to me. I was informed that just because we had represented at First Tier that meant nothing at UT, and fresh Authority would be required.
crikey. how wholly bizarre.
whilst it’s common for people to change representation, i can’t see why a UT should assume that someone has just because they have become the respondent to the other side’s appeal. In the “real” world, where the other side appeals, the respondent’s representatives are notified .... and would then write to say they were no longer instructed if that were the case ....