Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
some things in life are really difficult to understand
I had one of these a few weeks back; interesting that it’s a standard letter.
I asked HMCTS for a copy and they obliged. I can’t see that they’ll continue to considering it’s the DM’s duty to provide the response under the Procedure Rules.
That would seem to put DWP at something of a disadvantage in the oral hearing then wouldn’t it: do they turn up without any papers and just busk it?
That would seem to put DWP at something of a disadvantage in the oral hearing then wouldn’t it: do they turn up without any papers and just busk it?
I’ve been meaning to ask one of the friendly POs exactly that if and when I see one. Sadly it’s often the new bunch at our venue and I can see their carapaces hardening the more hearings they attend.
Ye Gods! You couldn’t make it up!
Could be interesting as I have just spoken with a client who either didn’t receive DWP appeal bundle or has lost it. Spoke with HMCTS in Glasgow and they advised they have a copy but do not have the manpower/time to copy it to send out to client/me and therefore should contact DWP for a copy!
Could be interesting as I have just spoken with a client who either didn’t receive DWP appeal bundle or has lost it. Spoke with HMCTS in Glasgow and they advised they have a copy but do not have the manpower/time to copy it to send out to client/me and therefore should contact DWP for a copy!
I request direction that the sub is issued to me in those cases if CTS don’t come up with a copy. It is very time consuming for them to track the file down but in some circumstances it’s a necessary evil.
That would seem to put DWP at something of a disadvantage in the oral hearing then wouldn’t it: do they turn up without any papers and just busk it?
I’ve been meaning to ask one of the friendly POs exactly that if and when I see one. Sadly it’s often the new bunch at our venue and I can see their carapaces hardening the more hearings they attend.
We have and have had POs who frequently turn up with instructions and maybe papers for the one appeal and stay the whole day without papers. They pester the clerk for a copy or tribunal members and, on occasions, me! They appear to lack any appreciation of just how unpopular it makes them. It amuses me no end.
On a similar tack I’m about to post something related to this. If you are DWP and you send your compiled papers to HMCTS then destroy your copy then how exactly do you retain any information about what reasonable adjustments a claimant may require? Thus far it appears the answer is that you do not. Going to be interesting :)
how exactly do you retain any information about what reasonable adjustments a claimant may require? Thus far it appears the answer is that you do not. Going to be interesting :)
In what context might they require adjustments? During the process that led up to the appeal?
I was about to type that I doubt they’d destroy PIP2s but now that all overpayments are recoverable they don’t need to keep them. I’ll bet the ESA50s are kept in Fario though.
Yup.
Might be hearing impaired and need communication by text. Maybe sight impaired and need large print at all stages from all parties.
So, appeal lodged and the bizarre process begins whereby the SSCS1 asks if you need RAs and even gives you a HMCTS number to ring to discuss if needed, but, the initial responsibility for actioning falls onto DWP. Let’s say at that stage you request large print and DWP by some miracle manage that having been alerted by HMCTS. HMCTS may have that info. on the SSCS1 but they largely don’t think it applies to them. DWP produce the large print appeal papers; pass to HMCTS for distribution but then don’t retain anything. What then happens if a further sub is required from DWP in light of say a new argument? Most likely outcome is that DM produces a new sub in a smaller point size. Appellant then gets caught up who is responsible for producing that in large print.
I’ve managed to get HMCTS to concede that, at that point, they may have responsibility BUT the point is that the appellant or their rep. has to chase this to reiterate information about RAs that ought to still be on file. If anyone has some evidence that it is then I’m all ears but thus far I can’t see that it is.
Bear in mind I’m working this thought process out in public so I’m happy for it to be pulled apart.
I also don’t want to hijack this thread as there are many other reasons why the failure to retain is an issue.
Ask CTS for a copy of an AT37 to see what info’s passed between DWP and CTS; I’ve not seen one for a few years so I can’t remember.
You could FOI it but it might be quicker asking a clerk at the next hearing you go to. You could even suggest at TUG that amending the AT37 might satisfy the PSED…
Edit; do they still have At37s? Since MR they might not but there’s got to be some correspondence other than the response.
Our lot do TUGs but once a year and they no longer involve much in the way of meaningful change or learning sadly.
I had forgotten all about AT37s so thanks for that. I too am not sure they still exist. I think the next time I’m at our CJC is a week Friday so a clerk sounds a great idea. Cheers.
They do still have AT37s, DWP sent me one by accident a few months ago.
the bottom line, IMHO, is that it’s all an application of the DWP’s data retention policy (which amounts to not retaining any, it seems) without thinking it through in any way shape or form.
I look forward to the day one of their counsel, before e.g. the CofA, has to confess that he has no papers because the DWP didn’t retain any ......
As someone who often submits HB appeals for the dark side, I can confirm that there most certainly still are AT37s. In an HB appeal, where there is still no MR and no direct lodgement, it’s the only way the clerks can create a record on their system: the AT37 serves as a kind of input sheet. Woe betide you if you don’t fill it in the way they like.
I did wonder whether AT37s would still serve any purpose under the MR/direct lodgement route - the SSCS1 does that job doesn’t it? Although I suppose the AT37 is still a familiar way for DWP to express their hearing preferences etc.
The AT37 provides (IIRC) the direct contact details for the AO, expression of whether a hearing is sought, expression of whether the case is regarded as “complex”, an indication of whether a PO will attend and I think its used to indicate if there is any material which shouldn’t be disclosed under rule 14.
In my view it is inappropriate that AT37s are not routinely provided to Appellants. It is considered extremely poor form for one party to engage in secret communications with the Court. http://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2017/08/16/writing-to-the-court-unilaterally-again-procedural-fairness-and-why-judges-need-the-patience-of-a-saint/
Not sure its a battle worth fighting though…