Overpayment Issues

https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/Forums/viewthread/18460/#87502 - Following on from this thread, I’m going through the DWPs appeal bundle and it appears I am missing large chunks of evidence which I thought that the DWP would need to provide.

Firstly, it states “the actual copy of the decision cannot be reproduced as its not held electronically” which the DWP then go on to explain the decision - surely this document can sent in paper form i.e. scanned through the system?

Secondly, they haven’t included the Compliance Interview (in audio form or transcript), Bank Statements or Complaints Letters.

Is it normal for these to not be included and would I be within my right to ask the Tribunal Service to produce a Directions Notice asking for these to be included?

Thanks

Adam

If the decision is adequately explained then I’m not sure there is merit in arguing the point. You either know what you’re appealing at this point or you don’t. As your client has an LD the onus would likely be on you to explain that to them anyway regardless of what was in the papers.

If bank statements were sent in then, yes, I would expect them to appear in the appeal papers. Again though, what does that add to your argument, which is essentially about ownership of the capital? Statements show the movement of the money and the amounts involved but if those aren’t in dispute then what’s the specific gain?

Complaint letters? - They’re not usually part of the decision making process and so not automatically pertinent to the appeal. If you sent them then ordinarily I would expect them to be there but in the past I have had appellants who have deluged both myself and HMCTS with documents of zero relevance and a judge can simply direct that documents are excluded to make the papers manageable and the fundamental arguments clear.

Compliance interview? - I would not expect any transcript of this unless you have explicitly put it at issue i.e. you disagree with some aspect of the record. Having it in there because it exists isn’t really an argument. Having it in there because it reveals some fact hitherto hidden or obscured by the DWP submission will have some evidential value. Otherwise, no.

I will sometimes request a copy of an IUC if the appellant raises a concern about it but otherwise I’d focus on your fundamental argument for non-recovery.

All of what Mike says, plus…...

I think you’re overcomplicating things.

1. You ought to have the evidence by now to establish the fact of the trust - i.e. that his mother did in fact set up a trust and that the trustee was under instructions to pay out only so much at a time.

2. Any money left lying around in his mother’s house after she died formed part of her estate and hence formed part of the trust - there’s nothing controversial about that as a proposition of law.

3. The only “difficult” part is establishing that in fact this is where the £20k that ended up in his account actually came from, that he did indeed find it lying around his mother’s house rather than than by sticking £100 on the nose of a 200-1 outside chance that placed first in the 2.30 at Wincanton. But, if you’ll excuse the pun, unless he’s got form for that kind of thing, where else did he get it? The nature of his health problems ought to rule out his having had the kind of employment that might allow him to squirrel away £20k….you only need to establish this is what happened on the balance of probabilities. If you can do that, I’m not sure there’s any more needed.

4. But for icing on the cake, your original post said he was “wrongly advised” to put the £20k in the bank? Wrongly advised by who? And will they confirm that they did indeed give that wrong advice? Might they also remember your client telling them exactly how he had found the £20k and be prepared to confirm that?