Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
...economical with the photocopier.
One of the best UT decisions I’ve read- Appeal No. CUC/1792/2020
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2022/56.html
First time I’ve read a UT decision that includes the heading “The moral of this case”...
Judge Wikeley is, of course, the master of finding the best ways to start a judgment:
Like it. I have added “economical with the photocopier” to a sub I am writing where the DWP has accidentally forgot to mention that the claimant had 2 previous PIP awards before being rejected for her current claim.
Judge Wikeley is, of course, the master of finding the best ways to start a judgment:
Thanks for that one Elliot. Master of finding a decent ending too….
“56. I hope I do not see this case again”
Judge Wikeley is, of course, the master of finding the best ways to start a judgment:
this is another good one - https://www.gov.uk/administrative-appeals-tribunal-decisions/vo-v-her-majesty-s-revenue-and-customs-tc-2017-ukut-343-aac which in turn refers to this one -
https://administrativeappeals.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=4649
HMRC and tax credits gave him a lot of ammunition ;)
[ Edited: 31 Mar 2022 at 01:47 pm by Daphne ]I wish he had dealt with the following:
1. DWP gave claimant until 14/04/2020 to accept CC.
2. DWP made the decision on 14/04/2020 that claimant had not accepted CC.
3. Even if that had been allowable (ie the other reasons given by SSWP and accepted by UT for why it was wrong were not present) then I can’t see how the DWP can take that decision on any day prior to 15/04/2020- claimant had until the end of 14/04/2020 to comply so on 14/04/2020 could not decide claimant had not complied.
Grrr….
** Realised after posted this that Daphne has already referred to this case above—- sorry Daphne—- will leave this here as a reminder to self to read whole thread properly before posting…..**
Judge Wikeley is, of course, the master of finding the best ways to start a judgment:
There is also the “1. Well here we go again…” in this vein: NI v HMRC [2015] UKUT 490 (AAC)
Opening paragraphs are great:
The wider context of this appeal
1. Well, here we go again.2. This is another case in which HMRC has stopped a female claimant’s tax credits award on the basis that she was not, as she said, a lone parent, but rather was living with the father of her children.
3. This is also another case where, regrettably, the First-tier Tribunal has failed to interrogate the case put by HMRC with sufficient rigour.
4. This is by no means the first such case to come to the attention of the Upper Tribunal; see e.g. SS v HMRC (TC) [2014] UKUT 0383 (AAC) (Judge Rowley), SB v HMRC (TC) [2014] UKUT 0543 (AAC) (Judge Wright), SW v HMRC (TC) [2015] UKUT 0394 (AAC) (Judge Wikeley) and now CS v HMRC (TC) [2015] UKUT 407 (AAC) (Judge Hemmingway). These are merely some examples from an extensive catalogue of such cases.
5. I doubt it will be any consolation to the Appellant in the present case to know that she has not been alone in her experience.
[ Edited: 1 Apr 2022 at 10:31 am by Martin Williams ]
this is another good one - https://www.gov.uk/administrative-appeals-tribunal-decisions/vo-v-her-majesty-s-revenue-and-customs-tc-2017-ukut-343-aac
That one also has some of my favourite footnotes:
1 Mr Hignett for HMRC helpfully reminds me that, in the parallel universe that is tax credits adjudication, the HMRC computer is set up in such a way that where a decision-maker concludes a claimant is not entitled to tax credits for an entire tax year, a nominal one day’s entitlement (April 6) remains on the computer system.
2 In the parallel universe that is tax credits adjudication, the file does not actually include something as elementary or fundamental as the actual decision notice. As HMRC’s original response to the FTT appeal explained, the HMRC computer cannot provide a copy of a decision notice – only the claimant can do that. So, in a classic Orwellian doublespeak, the response continues: “HMRC has not omitted to include the decision notices from the bundle; it is simply unable to provide copies”. How are we supposed to respond to this? “Oh well, that’s alright then.” Who designed this computer system? Did anyone think to check it was compatible with basic tenets of good public administration, let alone the principles of administrative justice?
My favourite has long been “The principle as thus understood has been described as extraordinary, and draconian: though the second epithet may be thought a little unfair to Draco whose harsh code of 621 BC was at least coherent” - Mr. Commissioner Howell QC CIS/7097/1995
Any discussion of good openings for a decision, be it UT or Commissioners need to credit Judge Jacobs with his desert island opening a few years ago. I suspect Judge Wikeley took some inspiration from that.
I like this scathing sentence in it:
“The papers before the FTT consisted of the DWP’s sparse six-page
response (pages A-F, with generously spaced text and plenty of empty space) ...”