Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
First-tier Tribunal decision rules that claimant cannot be required to register with universal jobmatch
We have been alerted to this FtT decision - http://unemploymentmovement.com/forum/law/3464-universal-jobmatch-interfers-with-human-rights-judgement.html#31745
Judge found that claimant had -
not unreasonably refused to comply with the claimant commitment as I flnd that the requirement for her to register on the Universal job match system, as opposed to merely using it to locate jobs, breaches her Article B rights and is not a necessary intrusion into her private life.
aye; but if you read down, she says that next time she applied for UC they refused to accept the previous FTT decision (which of course isn’t binding in any way)....
she needs to go through it all again and get it to UT for this to be of any effect…
aye; but if you read down, she says that next time she applied for UC they refused to accept the previous FTT decision (which of course isn’t binding in any way)....
she needs to go through it all again and get it to UT for this to be of any effect…
If the FtT decision isn’t binding in any way ...what is the point of appeal?
aye; but if you read down, she says that next time she applied for UC they refused to accept the previous FTT decision (which of course isn’t binding in any way)....
she needs to go through it all again and get it to UT for this to be of any effect…
If the FtT decision isn’t binding in any way ...what is the point of appeal?
It’s not binding on any future decision-makers or tribunals if/when the matter comes up for review/supersession, but the FtT decision stands for that date (unless set aside, or successfully appealed to the UT).
The issue of the principle of Res Judicata vs the finality of Social Security decisions can get pretty technical. But I would expect that a tribunal decision re date X which says that declining to use UJM was ok, would not necessarily be an open-ended shield for the same issue on future dates Y.
[ Edited: 7 May 2017 at 11:50 pm by Jon (CANY) ]Sadly I agree. It’s not a metal shield. However, it is a very useful paper shield in the sense that the claimant has the option of placing it in front of JCP every single time and advising them that every single time they ask them to register they are risking a FTT and further legal action. It’s also relatively easy to accompany it with a letter before action. After all it’s entirely credible that a client with a FTT decision saying that would then seek further legal advice to enforce their Article B rights.
Generally in the face of a letter before action they will tend to crumble. However, that doesn’t take into account that, with all due respect to them, the level of JCP staff this will be addressed to will simply not understand the issue. Any manager faced with this will have no choice but to stand their ground lest they become known as the one who opened the floodgates!
So, would be interesting to test this one out on future cases.
The Doctrine of Precedent dictates that FTT decisions are not binding. The lowest level court cannot bind the courts above it, nor does it bind courts of the same level.
I don’t believe a part 54 letter to early in the piece would have any great effect on them either. Judicial Review is the option of last resort and it will need permission to proceed. The court will not grant that permission unless it is satisfied that there is no suitable alternative remedy such as using the complaints process or appealing to a higher court.
It is absolutely worth making the argument though on the strength that it appears to be good argument, but I agree with Claire; it would have to go further up the food chain before it had some real legs.
I’m looking at this from a more practical angle.
Of course an FTT decision does not bind them but
a) it’s persuasive,
b) they’ll eventually run out of good reasons to keep defying them,
c) won’t play well if the client were to lodge either a formal complaint or enforce their article B rights.
d) certainly won’t play well with UT who, if they see a pattern, will start making replacement decisions rather than refer back in order to be defied again.
However, the point about letters before action is not that you have exhausted every option to you. It’s more that JCP panic and back off as is the repeated pattern upon receipt. I’ve had numerous cases over the years where the backtracking has been rapid and complete just because they have no clue what it is they’re dealing with. It’s perfectly possible it has legs without going further up the food chain at all.
That said, I have had a similar case joined to some other cases in another area where barristers opinion was that the claimant HAD exhausted their options because
a) an appeal to a FTT had already produced the one outcome. If it produced the same outcome JCP would defy it again and even if it were to go to UT and be sent back to FTT they could and most likely would defy it again.
b) a complaint would simply be about whether decision making processes had been followed and not the substance of the decision itself.
I’m looking at this from a more practical angle.
Of course an FTT decision does not bind them but
a) it’s persuasive,
b) they’ll eventually run out of good reasons to keep defying them,
c) won’t play well if the client were to lodge either a formal complaint or enforce their article B rights.
d) certainly won’t play well with UT who, if they see a pattern, will start making replacement decisions rather than refer back in order to be defied again.
Which is exactly the point I made
“It is absolutely worth making the argument though on the strength that it appears to be good argument,”
However, the point about letters before action is not that you have exhausted every option to you. It’s more that JCP panic and back off as is the repeated pattern upon receipt. I’ve had numerous cases over the years where the backtracking has been rapid and complete just because they have no clue what it is they’re dealing with. It’s perfectly possible it has legs without going further up the food chain at all.
That said, I have had a similar case joined to some other cases in another area where barristers opinion was that the claimant HAD exhausted their options because
a) an appeal to a FTT had already produced the one outcome. If it produced the same outcome JCP would defy it again and even if it were to go to UT and be sent back to FTT they could and most likely would defy it again.
b) a complaint would simply be about whether decision making processes had been followed and not the substance of the decision itself.
I would imagine that this is a regularly occurring problem where you could link together several cases and make the argument, and of course, a joinder may be viable if there were other cases on the same issue. The opinion of counsel, doesn’t necessarily mean that the Judge who reads the case would agree and grant permission, which on the points you raise would seem to call for an awful lot of speculation on who ‘may, or may not’ make the same decision. But if you have Counsel who is willing to make that leap then that would be the time to hit them with a Part 54
You know my method of work, and you know that I prepare everything like it is going the whole way right from the off. A Part 54 letter has it’s place, but I don’t think that it is the opening shot, purely and simply because of the comment you made above - ‘they have no clue what they are dealing with’ - A Part 54 sent at the right time, and to the right people who have the ability to spot when there is a case to answer, can have a dramatic effect. Going nuclear on most every issue with the wrong people tends to lessen the blast radius IMHO
I get very few JCP cases of this type so my blast is occasional and the radius wide 😊
but it occurs to me, the way DWP DM’s at the bottom end are, even with a UT decision on the point, the individual in the original case, and anyone else, wouldn’t be assisted unless and until DWP change their instructions to staff on universal job match. i should think people will keep on having to keep on showing their original and subsequent decisions and so on and so forth…..
but it occurs to me, the way DWP DM’s at the bottom end are, even with a UT decision on the point, the individual in the original case, and anyone else, wouldn’t be assisted unless and until DWP change their instructions to staff on universal job match. i should think people will keep on having to keep on showing their original and subsequent decisions and so on and so forth…..
Yes, but there are ways and means. For example, getting this information to the protesters at Ashton Jobcentre would mean every claimant going in or coming out could be advised to challenge. There is also merit in claimants doing this again and again because that’s exactly how instructions do get changed.
There is also merit in claimants doing this again and again because that’s exactly how instructions do get changed.
true, and if people are motivated to take the point every time, good for them. but given the way sanctions are being imposed at every opportunity, there are bound also to be many who would rather know they’re getting their money, what little it is, than not….
As it goes I am getting a 404 error - ‘resouce requested could not be found on this server’ - this with Firfox, IE and Chrome…..have been out of the country for the last week, so new to this thread. Was it there earlier and has now gone? Anyone?
On the main issue…..would one idea be to get a sympathetic FtT that was conscious of the wider context to disallow the appeal so it could go higher? That is assuming the Dept is taking the strategic view of not appealing?
As it goes I am getting a 404 error - ‘resouce requested could not be found on this server’ - this with Firfox, IE and Chrome…..have been out of the country for the last week, so new to this thread. Was it there earlier and has now gone? Anyone?
Yes, link not working for me either.
As it goes I am getting a 404 error - ‘resouce requested could not be found on this server’ - this with Firfox, IE and Chrome…..have been out of the country for the last week, so new to this thread. Was it there earlier and has now gone? Anyone?
Yes, link not working for me either.
i think because the actual website has gone - i put “unemployment movement” into google search and found that the actual forum, from which the original link came, was gone.
Hmm. Shame we couldn’t have the same happen to UJM.
Does the decision in Carmichael (HB) [2017] UKUT 174 (AAC) open up the possibility of the FtT granting a more permanent remedy outside of its traditional powers if it agrees with the FtT in this thread and doing so is the only way of restraining an Article 8 breach?
Page 1 of the forum thread linked above is archived here:
https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20161208205644/http://unemploymentmovement.com/forum/law/3464-universal-jobmatch-interfers-with-human-rights-judgement.html
However, the judgement itself, which was attached to that post, does not seem to be archived anywhere.