Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Decision making and appeals  →  Thread

Understanding the reasons for a decision

 

Dan Manville
forum member

Mental health, Wolverhampton CC Welfare Rights

Send message

Total Posts: 1974

Joined: 15 October 2012

I don’t think I am sticking my neck out too far to say that a person must be provided with enough information to be able to understand a decision that has been made to give them adequate information to challenge it.

I’m looking for caselaw confirming that. I’ll bet someone knows it off the top of their head and surfing the PIP Intervention decisions is not quickly revealing the Bano decision that cites it iirc.

Thanks in advance

     
HB Anorak
forum member

benefits consultant/trainer, hbanorak.co.uk, east london

Send message

Total Posts: 1655

Joined: 12 March 2013

Top of my head,without checking, on my phone during tea break:

Warwick DC v Freeman (overpayments to landlord)

R(H) 1/03 I think: dodgy tenancy?

Can’t wait to see if I’m right.  Marvo the Memory Man

     
HB Anorak
forum member

benefits consultant/trainer, hbanorak.co.uk, east london

Send message

Total Posts: 1655

Joined: 12 March 2013

No it’s not Freeman. Another HB one from around the same time. I’ll try to find it

     
Dan Manville
forum member

Mental health, Wolverhampton CC Welfare Rights

Send message

Total Posts: 1974

Joined: 15 October 2012

R(M)1/96 ?

I might be barking up the wrong tree here; I’m wondering whether I could question the validity of a UC supersession where there’s been no explanation whatsoever for the MIF being applied.

      [ Edited: 13 Sep 2018 at 11:49 am by Dan Manville ]
hicksg
forum member

Welfare Rights Officer, Angus Council

Send message

Total Posts: 4

Joined: 7 November 2013

R (A) 1/72

SSWP v AT [ESA] (2017) UKUT 338 AAC

^ for adequacy of reasons

also R (CS) 1/100 - if the decision not connected to any legal provision it may be defective.

each case has connected useful caselaw embedded.

all the best.

     
past caring
forum member

Welfare Rights Adviser Southwark Law Centre Peckham

Send message

Total Posts: 801

Joined: 25 February 2014

Dan - if I’ve understood you correctly, it’s not the adequacy of a tribunal’s (statement of) reasons that’s in issue here, but of the DWP’s reasons for making a supersession decision in the first place. If that’s right,  R(A) 1/72 and R(M) 1/96 aren’t particularly to the point. I’d say, you are after something like CIB/1509/2004 in which Commissioner Jacobs said,

13. On basic principle, the burden is on the person who seeks to overturn the existing position. In a case like this, that person is the Secretary of State, acting through the decision-maker. Accordingly, the burden of proof is on the decision-maker. That is in accordance with the principle set out, in relation to the former review procedure, by Chief Commissioner Micklethwait in R(I) 1/71, at paragraph 16:

  ‘A claimant must in general prove his title to a benefit. Once he has done so and has been awarded, and  
  perhaps paid, the benefit, he can fairly insist that those who contend that the award should be varied
  or cancelled on review must shew that there are valid grounds for review.’

14. On appeal, the tribunal reconsiders the decision-maker’s decision as if afresh. The burden remains the same.

That passage on the burden of proof/grounds for supersession in initial decisions has been cited with approval in both ST v SSWP (ESA) [2012] UKUT 469 (AAC) and FN v SSWP (ESA) [2015] UKUT 670 (AAC) (reported as [2016] AACR 24) - both ESA decisions, but the principle applies more broadly. Certainly, I’ve had no problems with that argument at tribunal…...

 

      [ Edited: 13 Sep 2018 at 01:16 pm by past caring ]
ClairemHodgson
forum member

Solicitor, SC Law, Harrow

Send message

Total Posts: 920

Joined: 13 April 2016

Dan Manville - 13 September 2018 11:12 AM

I don’t think I am sticking my neck out too far to say that a person must be provided with enough information to be able to understand a decision that has been made to give them adequate information to challenge it.

I’m looking for caselaw confirming that. I’ll bet someone knows it off the top of their head and surfing the PIP Intervention decisions is not quickly revealing the Bano decision that cites it iirc.

Thanks in advance

it’s a basic principle of relevance not only in benefits land but also in all other areas of law.

i’ve seen comments to this effect in family, PI, immigration, all sorts of decisions, where the original tribunal (whether a tribunal as such, a judge, the initial decision maker) hasn’t made sense/mis applied logic to facts found/etc - the end result is that it MUST be possible for a person to understand it

     
Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 777

Joined: 14 July 2014

What stage are things at here?

     
Dan Manville
forum member

Mental health, Wolverhampton CC Welfare Rights

Send message

Total Posts: 1974

Joined: 15 October 2012

Elliot Kent - 13 September 2018 01:35 PM

What stage are things at here?

I’ve just lodged the recon. There was no explanation why the MIF was applied nor any explanation of the amount they came to as the earnings threshold which in turn was very strange.

I am minded to question teh valididyt of their decision.

Thanks all