× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Decision making and appeals  →  Thread

“Standing Tribunal”?

CHAC Adviser
forum member

Caseworker - CHAC, Middlesbrough

Send message

Total Posts: 259

Joined: 14 September 2017

I’ve just had a directions notice from the Tribunal which has rather entertainingly castigated the Secretary of State for failing to comply with a previous direction:

The Secretary of State was directed to provide a full benefit history copies of all DLA, PIP and ESA WCA assessments by 26 May 2020. This was because these assessments may be relevant to the determination of this appeal.

Unfortunately the Secretary of State has decided not to comply with this direction. This is not acceptable.

They’ve then gone on to direct them to comply by x date and if they don’t then they may be barred from taking further part. It then goes on to direct that “The appeal is to be put before the Standing Tribunal on 18/08/2020”. Which has somewhat stumped me. What is the “Standing Tribunal”?

My assumption is that it’s a reference to the triage business that we’ve had up here for ages and the extension of the scheme during COVID-19 to try and deal with cases without a hearing. Which would make sense as there is a lot of evidence already in the bundle (including medical and my submission) so it’s quite possible they could make a decision without a hearing.

But I’d rather not miss being wrong footed and getting a phone call on the day asking me to join a hearing I’m not ready for…

Anyone got any ideas?

 

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3117

Joined: 14 July 2014

I’m assuming it just means “stick it under the nose of whichever Tribunal happens to be sitting that day”. Good bet that the Tribunal just happens to be chaired by the DTJ who gave those directions.

Incidentally I am losing count of how many of these cases I am seeing where SSWP are being barred from participation and having points summarily decided against them due to failure to deal with directions. Judiciary seems to be getting sick and tired of it.

roecab
forum member

Welfare benefits supervisor - Roehampton CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 465

Joined: 17 June 2010

Google threw this up - makes sense, i guess?

The term ‘standing’ has been defined in many ways by writers on domestic legal procedure and is essentially synonymous with being a party to a proceeding.

https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e79

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

Elliot Kent - 24 July 2020 01:10 PM

I’m assuming it just means “stick it under the nose of whichever Tribunal happens to be sitting that day”. Good bet that the Tribunal just happens to be chaired by the DTJ who gave those directions.

Incidentally I am losing count of how many of these cases I am seeing where SSWP are being barred from participation and having points summarily decided against them due to failure to deal with directions. Judiciary seems to be getting sick and tired of it.

They’re not turning up on my cases anyway so barring seems pointless albeit that it’s good to see.

Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 3117

Joined: 14 July 2014

Mike Hughes - 24 July 2020 04:53 PM
Elliot Kent - 24 July 2020 01:10 PM

I’m assuming it just means “stick it under the nose of whichever Tribunal happens to be sitting that day”. Good bet that the Tribunal just happens to be chaired by the DTJ who gave those directions.

Incidentally I am losing count of how many of these cases I am seeing where SSWP are being barred from participation and having points summarily decided against them due to failure to deal with directions. Judiciary seems to be getting sick and tired of it.

They’re not turning up on my cases anyway so barring seems pointless albeit that it’s good to see.

The point of barring them is that the Tribunal can then summarily decide the case against them without a hearing under rule 8(8).

Ruth_T
forum member

Volunteer adviser - Corby Borough Welfare Rights & CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 313

Joined: 21 June 2010

Not long ago I grew impatient, having waited a year for DWP to produce 2 missing pages from a BI 118A Renewal advice form for an IIDB appeal,  having been directed to do so.  I wrote to HMCTS requesting a Direction to bar the DWP from taking any further part in the appeal proceedings, on the ground that they had failed to co-operate with the tribunal.  The missing pages arrived shortly afterwards.

Stainsby
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Plumstead Community Law Centre

Send message

Total Posts: 613

Joined: 17 June 2010

Has anyone successfully managed to get a case referred to the UT under Rule 7(3)?

CHAC Adviser
forum member

Caseworker - CHAC, Middlesbrough

Send message

Total Posts: 259

Joined: 14 September 2017

Elliot Kent - 24 July 2020 01:10 PM

I’m assuming it just means “stick it under the nose of whichever Tribunal happens to be sitting that day”. Good bet that the Tribunal just happens to be chaired by the DTJ who gave those directions.

Gold star for Elliot! Decision notice arrived the other day exactly the same judge that made the direction at the start of this thread and DWP very much barred from the proceedings as well as having the decision made in my clients favour.

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

Somewhat predictably the amendment rules make no use of the phrase “standing tribunal”.

It’s a weird one this isn’t it. On the one hand DWP were very keen to recruit and let loose a whole new group of POs with no reference to the original PO role as friend of the tribunal. Instead they were to appear and “defend” decisions in non-adversarial tribunals! Where they bothered to turn up at all they predictably couldn’t defend themselves against a feather let alone a legitimate appeal. The approach of some tribunals to such people was brilliantly summed up by a clerk to me when they said “well that’s going to leave psychological scars” after a particularly brutal picking apart of a PO who didn’t know the law; didn’t know the case law; had no clue on the guidance and yet again appeared to think that their waiting room was the place to read the papers for the first time.

Then here we are, what, 2 or 3 years down the line and they don’t bother coming into telephone hearings and no effort is made to comply with a single direction to the extent that I find requests to bar are featuring on my horizon quite a lot.