set aside for procedural irregularity

I wonder if I could get some opinions on this one…

Client had two DLA appeals heard together in June and was awarded nothing for both cases. I requested SoR for both decisions on 18/06/12. Chased up with TS on 03/09/12 and was told that they hadn’t received request for SoR. So on the same day I resent the request with the fax cover from the previous request showing it had been received by the TS. Called TS on 19/11/12 and was told the request was still with the Judge so I wrote a complaint on the same day about the delay having a negative impact on my client’s recourse to justice. On 05/12/12 I received two Records of Proceedings and one SoR. The SoR had both case reference numbers on it - one typed and one handwritten. When I read through it (apart from being filled with errors of law, in my humble opinion) it clearly referred to two appeals but didn’t really deal with the separate issues in both appeals and was very fuzzy about dates and evidence relating to the two appeals (the decisions were a year apart). I called the TS to confirm that a SoR wasn’t missing and was told that the SoR I had received was the only one. I duly wrote a set aside request with detailed reasons as well as giving a case for leave to appeal to the UT. On 21/02/13 I got a letter from the TS with a SoR attached telling me that there had been an administrative error and that this new statement should have been sent out along with the other one back in December. The new statement clearly deals with all the issues I raised in my request for leave to appeal and purports to be a response to the decision in the first case.

The first statement had both case numbers on it and referred to two appeals, however badly written it was and it was clearly confirmed with me that there was only one SoR. I’ve been through the Tribunal Practice and Procedure handbook and can’t find anything to help me. I want to challenge the fairness in the TS doing this but without making accusations. Does anybody have any caselaw that might be useful? Any opinions?

Just to be clear - my contention is that there was only ever one SoR that tried, but failed, to deal with both decisions; it only dealt clearly with the second decision and this is why I requested a set aside. Now this has been pointed out to the TS, another SoR dealing properly with the first decision has materialised…

I’ll take a look now - thanks for that.