Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Decision making and appeals  →  Thread

tribunal or mags - here we go again!

‹ First  < 4 5 6

neilbateman
forum member

Welfare Rights Author, Trainer & Consultant

Send message

Total Posts: 443

Joined: 16 June 2010

Any chance of a copy of that UT decision for Rightsnet?

John Bott
forum member

Derbyshire Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 8

Joined: 7 September 2010

I will dig it out but it was very brief.

Brian JB
forum member

Advisor - Wirral Welfare Rights Unit, Birkenhead

Send message

Total Posts: 472

Joined: 18 June 2010

John Bott - 12 October 2012 12:51 PM

Hope you’re not retiring soon. I’ve had a case on-the-go since 2008 (Court: Guilty verdict)/(Upper Tribunal: Not recoverable OP ‘client could not have known fact to report’ SoS agreed at UT); I submitted to the Criminal Case Review Commission but it has taken 2 years for a provisional statement of reasons from CCRC.

Still 16 years to go, so hopefully it will be resolved by then !! Papers have been with CCRC for several months and they have recently written to request all our papers as well

WB-room
forum member

ashfield cab, sutton in ashfield

Send message

Total Posts: 51

Joined: 9 January 2013

Commissioner Mesher was spot on !  I have had a fair bit of experience of cases that were put before Mags by sols who thought they were doing the client a great favour by pleading guilty early and getting a reduced penalty. In many cases I despaired to see our mutual client plead to an overpayment amount that should have been challenged.

a couple of enlightened solicitors referred their cases to me before any Mags hearings and when the case did go to criminal court asked me to go along and explain to the bench what the extent of any mitigation might be in respect of the benefits issue

Brian JB
forum member

Advisor - Wirral Welfare Rights Unit, Birkenhead

Send message

Total Posts: 472

Joined: 18 June 2010

Wearing case still at CCRC

Lorraine Cooper
forum member

Family Support, Barnardo's, Merthyr Tydfil

Send message

Total Posts: 132

Joined: 8 June 2011

I’ve just been handed an identical case to these. LTAHAW (they weren’t but he’s lied to everyone including my client about where he was), appeal to FTT submitted, and has now received a summons to Mag court. And of course, now can’t get legal aid. Clt on IS, can’t afford a paid solicitor.  There’s words in my mind, but I don’t think I should really check the swear filter on rightsnet.

Altered Chaos
forum member

Operations & Advice Manager - Citizens Advice Taunton

Send message

Total Posts: 424

Joined: 28 June 2010

Lorraine Cooper - 28 October 2013 02:52 PM

I’ve just been handed an identical case to these. LTAHAW (they weren’t but he’s lied to everyone including my client about where he was), appeal to FTT submitted, and has now received a summons to Mag court. And of course, now can’t get legal aid. Clt on IS, can’t afford a paid solicitor.  There’s words in my mind, but I don’t think I should really check the swear filter on rightsnet.

Hi Lorraine

Legal Aid still exists for criminal work, which the summons to Magistrate’s Court would come under.

Chaos

Lorraine Cooper
forum member

Family Support, Barnardo's, Merthyr Tydfil

Send message

Total Posts: 132

Joined: 8 June 2011

*phew* colour me (and client) extremely relieved. Going out to see her Friday, so will be pushing to get legal aid sol & adjourn the mag’s as well as pushing the tribunal forward.

nevip
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Sefton Council, Liverpool

Send message

Total Posts: 3093

Joined: 16 June 2010

Tom H
forum member

Newcastle Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 783

Joined: 23 June 2010

Tom H - 11 May 2012 05:49 PM

..The criminal court clearly had jurisdiction in Wearing despite the fact that the elements of the section 111A(1A) offence included questions of social security law such as “entitlement” reserved exclusively for the SSWP under section 8(1)(c) SSA 98.  A relevant enactment under the latter includes an enactment under the Administration Act. 

But the fact is decisions on entitlement to benefit, as opposed to contributions, are not conclusive for the criminal proceedings so the criminal court doesn’t have to adjourn to await the outcome of tribunals.  It should, of course, do so on the basis that a successful tribunal would almost certainly represent a reasonable doubt..

I’ve changed my mind about the above. Where one condition of the offence is that “entitlement” is affected, it is implicit, surely, that the F-tT or UT’s decision on that entitlement is conclusive.  The question of entitlement is, after all, a matter for the SSWP

Neil identified express provision to this effect in the form of section 117 (see posts 30 & 32).  However, that section, on closer inspection, only made contributions decisions conclusive for the criminal proceedings.  However, I think there is no need for similar express provision when it comes to entitlement decisions simply because it is implicit as above. 

It would be odd if that were not the case.  Eg, if criminal proceedings must be adjourned under section 117 to await the outcome of a F-tT re a contribution decision appeal, but need not be adjourned for the outcome of the F-tT (or UT’s) substantive decision on benefit entitlement itself.

[ Edited: 28 Oct 2013 at 05:34 pm by Tom H ]
WB-room
forum member

ashfield cab, sutton in ashfield

Send message

Total Posts: 51

Joined: 9 January 2013

I have a case that was adjourned due to presenting officer as usual failing to attend, and now the tribunal says DWP will be prosecuting so they want a postponement until after criminal proceedind which have not yet started.

I have responded to the tribunal that we want to go ahead as planned using above cases also that as we are disputing the amount of overpayment recoverable it is essential that a tribunal determines this before a kindly Magistrate gets to work with his/her pocket calculator. also human rights act A6 right to a timely hearing

this case of mine has a potential for over 40k overpayment so the issue is deperately imprtant for my client,

SocSec
forum member

welfare benefits/citizens advice//ashfield

Send message

Total Posts: 277

Joined: 11 July 2013

I have now had the response and the case will be listed before the criminal case comes up, the Mote case I mentioned was supported by the Tribunal Judge as a reason for immediate listing

[ Edited: 7 Jan 2014 at 10:50 am by SocSec ]
Brian JB
forum member

Advisor - Wirral Welfare Rights Unit, Birkenhead

Send message

Total Posts: 472

Joined: 18 June 2010

Just to update on “Wearing” - her case is still with the CCRC, with no outcome as yet

Brian JB
forum member

Advisor - Wirral Welfare Rights Unit, Birkenhead

Send message

Total Posts: 472

Joined: 18 June 2010

Mrs Wearing has now received a Statement of Reasons from the CCRC with notification of their decision not to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal.

She is understandably disappointed and frustrated. She would like to speak to someone who has experience in these matters, to see whether she can take up their offer for her to make further submissions by 5th January 2015 (or else decision will become final and case will be closed)

I do not have any legal qualification or experience in dealing with such matters, and would be grateful if anyone is aware of any person or company that I can point her towards, to get that advice

Thanks

Brian

Steve_h
forum member

Welfare Rights- AIW Health

Send message

Total Posts: 193

Joined: 24 June 2010

Merseyside Welfare Rights?