A rushed question regarding MR

But… Now I’ve the docs in hand I have revisited the regs.

(a)the Secretary of State gives a person written notice of a decision under section 8 or 10 of the Act (whether as originally made or as revised under section 9 of that Act) ; and .
(b)that notice includes a statement to the effect that there is a right of appeal in relation to the decision only if the Secretary of State has considered an application for a revision of the decision.

The bold bit would seem to put it beyond doubt that whether it’s a S10 outcome or a S9 revision if the MR statement is included then it needs to be recon’d

My interpretation is that ‘whether originally made or as revised’ is simply clarifying that it’s the same decision throughout and that the section 9 ‘decision’ is not a new decision for this purpose. I don’t think it supports their view of it at all.

Well we shall see what we shall see… on one of these decisions I have asked for a recon having received the SSCS1 back.

On the other, despite the revised decision carrying the MR statement and thus, theoretically, needing to be reconed again I have submitted the SSCS1 with a big bold statement requesting directions on admissibility.

I will be drafting my complaint on Monday.

TFIF

DManville - 16 January 2014 03:30 PM

Andrew Dutton - 15 January 2014 03:39 PM

DWP did a Q&A on this dated December 2013 - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/264915/appeals-process-changes-q-and-a.pdf

Q: What happens if someone still thinks DWP’s decision is wrong after a mandatory reconsideration?
If, after mandatory reconsideration, a person still wishes to dispute DWP’s decision, they can appeal against the decision, regardless of whether the decision has been changed or remained the same. Any appeal must be made in writing to HMCTS. The Mandatory Reconsideration Notice will contain details of how to do this. A copy of the notice must be included with the appeal.

and therein lies the nub, if they haven’t issued the notice it bounces off HMCTS with nary a Judge’s glance.

Edit: So I’ve asked why

and now I’ve got a reply

sadly it does seem as though they’re set up to bounce appeals with no MR notice. I’ll report in about what happens to my other case where I’ve requested directions in big bold text (but not 72 point… you know who you are :) ) at the beginning of my letter.

I’ve just had a look at delegeation of functions to staff

A decision under rule 7 is delegated to staff, so they are correct to consider it themselves (although they should still exercise the power in a lawful manner.)

But if the staff do not waive the requirement, there is a right to apply to a judge under para 7 of the statement for the decision to be considered afresh. That looks like the next step.

MrFinch - 28 January 2014 09:51 AM

I’ve just had a look at delegeation of functions to staff

A decision under rule 7 is delegated to staff, so they are correct to consider it themselves (although they should still exercise the power in a lawful manner.)

But if the staff do not waive the requirement, there is a right to apply to a judge under para 7 of the statement for the decision to be considered afresh. That looks like the next step.

That would appear to be a broken link. I asked our Regional Judge whether they’d delegated any decisions to the clerks November before last and he said no; when did it change?

It doesn’t like the space in the link, so try copying and pasting this:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Practice Directions/Tribunals/sec-delegation-functions-to-staff-01082013.pdf

(paragraph 5)

thanks roger, i’ve attached the practice direction below -

“(4) The specified circumstances are where an appellant has stated an intention to
withdraw the appeal, but has not sent or delivered to the Tribunal notice of withdrawal
in writing, as required by rule 17(1)(a).”

Doesn’t seem to apply to situations other than when a party fails to notify a withdrawal in writing

Does explain how they can accept a withdrawal over the phone though…

ros - 29 January 2014 10:10 AM

thanks roger, i’ve attached the practice direction below -

Ros, can you link to where that was? I’ve spotted on judiciary.gov.uk that there should be a hyphen between practice and direction but even when I type the rest in I get a 404.

A linl to any SEC practice directions would seem to be a hnady thing to have but there don’t seem to be any relating to SSCS cases on there, just asylum support.

Cheers

hi dan -

i just saved it to my desktop from roger’s link and then attached it but have found link to it here -

http://www.justice.gov.uk/tribunals/sscs/rules-and-legislation

cheers ros

Thanks Ros

They could have put that practice statement in the practice statement area! [/rant]

i don’t disagree!

Well I’m going to keep this thread running rather than start a new one.

One of the decisions that has been revised was sent to the appeals centre with the following phrase at the top of the covering letter…

This is an application; pursuant to rule 7(2)(a) Tribunal Procedure (First tier Tribunal) (SEC) Rules 2008 to waive the requirement for a copy of the mandatory reconsideration notice and, indeed for further reconsideration. No Mandatory Reconsideration Notice has been issued. Please refer this application for directions

but they’ve not referred it back for directions, they’ve just sent it straight back.

I am fast losing the will to live!