Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
FtT requiring new authority for SOR and LTA
Hi folks
Just wondered if anyone has had similar issues recently.
Case #1
We are down as reps on SSCS1. We assist with the appeal including doing a submission.
After the appeal was refused we requested a SOR only to get a directions notice from Judge X requiring new authority for us to act before they could be provided.
Case#2
Same again - down as reps and submission provided. SOR requested and SOR provided no problem by Judge Z. Request for leave to appeal submitted but directions notice subsequently received from Judge X again advising we need to provide new authority for LTA because; ‘the authorisation held by the Tribunal, authorises **** to act on the appellant’s behalf up to and including reconsideration and appeal. The appeal has now been determined. An authorisation covering the proposed next steps is required.’
In Case#1 we challenged the directions notice on the basis of Tribunal regs 34 and 11(?) from memory, this was refused so we have requested a set aside of the directions notice and if not to be taken as LTA on the basis of failing to provide the SOR.
Case#2 we might have to jump through the hoops because the client wants it sorting quicker rather than us getting into a back and forth with the Tribunal. Any one else had any similar issues?
Cheers
We’ve not come across the same situations as yours, but in the rare cases where it is the DWP/LA which appeals to the Upper Tribunal, then we’ve been told that new authority is required for us to represent at UT. When our clients are appealing to UT, we would be named as rep on the OSSC1.
There is an old decision from Judge May, CSDLA/2/2001, which held that a representative must secure a new mandate, following on from an adverse decision, for the purposes of an appeal to the Commissioner. That was a very odd case where the claimant had an adviser dealing with the case who had seemingly taken it upon himself to pursue an appeal to the Commissioners without further instruction and the claimant had concurrently instructed solicitors to make the same application and it was left to the Commissioner to untangle who was actually validly acting.
In CDLA/654/2004, it was held however that this did not preclude a representative from requesting a statement of reasons without further authority or reversion to their client.
These decisions are both prior to the FtT & UT scheme though. We now have two different concepts; a representative appointed under Rule 11 of the FtT rules and a representative appointed under Rule 11 of the UT rules. In each case, the party’s representative may do “anything permitted or required to be done by [that] party under these Rules” and in each case the appointment extends from the point at which written notice of the appointment and a person may assume that the appointment continues until they receive written notice that this is not so.
There is a clear delineation between proceedings in the FtT which run from beginning the appeal through the decision and then any set aside, correction or application to the FtT itself for permission to appeal to the UT -remembering that permission to appeal is just that - it does not actually instigate an onward appeal. All of that is covered by the FtT Rules and therefore the FtT mandate. Separately you have anything done in the UT from the point of that appeal actually beginning which requires a distinct mandate under the UT rules.
A mandate under the FtT rules is not a mandate under the UT rules; so it is right that notice of the SSWP’s appeal to the UT will not be notified to someone who is not yet appointed under the UT rules, but I think that it is very seriously arguable that the refusal to deal with either an SOR or PTA request under the rules is in error of law.
It’s a different matter, of course, if the Judge has some actual reason to think that you might not be validly authorised to do what you are purporting to do.
[ Edited: 22 Nov 2019 at 10:45 am by Elliot Kent ]What Elliot says.
Sounds like this is an issue with a particular judge’s (and some of the admin. staff at the relevant HMCTS Admin. Support Centre?) interpretation of the admin. procedures / tribunal rules? We are not aware of any recent HMCTS practice notice or other guidance that might have changed their approach.
We frequently request SOR’s and have never had this problem (with Birmingham ASC). It might be worth raising the issue with the regional judge (as a judicial matter) and the ASC (as an administrative matter) and at the next tribunal users meeting (TUG) if you still have them in your region?
I agree with Eliot and Peter. I’ve never had a problem with this. Ever!
I agree with Eliot and Peter. I’ve never had a problem with this. Ever!
Us too!
My consent forms always explicitly say UT and beyond. Never had an issue.
I agree with Eliot and Peter. I’ve never had a problem with this. Ever!
Us too!
Same here!
It was only when I made my application directly to the UT for permission to appeal that I supplied a new FOA. Before then everything was done under the FOA sent to the FtT originally.
Thanks for all the responses they are much appreciated. It transpires that this is actually a long standing district judge which makes it even more puzzling. Will be interesting to see how it pans out or if we receive any more similar cases.
We no longer have TUG’s but one of the judges does intermittently come to our local welfare rights group meeting so in time I will ask them about this.
[ Edited: 25 Nov 2019 at 04:28 pm by FWK77 ]They’re obliged to have TUGs. First time in 25 years we’re having 2 this year. Number 2 is tomorrow. Mucho intrigue as to why.
They’re obliged to have TUGs. First time in 25 years we’re having 2 this year. Number 2 is tomorrow. Mucho intrigue as to why.
Oh interesting! Anything I can wave in their face about that? We’ve been told that there will be no more TUGs for our area since they’re closing down the admin office in Newcastle and shipping it off to Leeds!
They’re obliged to have TUGs. First time in 25 years we’re having 2 this year. Number 2 is tomorrow. Mucho intrigue as to why.
Oh interesting! Anything I can wave in their face about that? We’ve been told that there will be no more TUGs for our area since they’re closing down the admin office in Newcastle and shipping it off to Leeds!
I’m sure LG and IJ will try to get them set up again when we’re settled at the civic centre!
They told us our last one was 13 months ago today so actually only 1 a year. Several of us think they’ve got their dates mixed up. Fancy that!
Hi folks
Just thought I would update you with the outcome of my request for the directions notice to be set aside or if not permission for LTA. The judge responded as follows:
1) An application has been received by the Tribunal for the notice dated 16.09.19 to be set aside.
2) I have reviewed this appeal and do not consider it is in the Appellant’s interest for this matter to be delayed further and the request is therefore granted.
3) I will now proceed to prepare the statement of reasons.
A very odd carry on all told….