Reply To: The end of IS/JSA(IB), termination and adverse inference.


This is shaping up to be the next Desert Island series.

I am not convinced about Stainsby’s suggestion that a Tribunal; can give itself jurisdiction under HRA s7 and s9 – those are about proceedings to remedy injustice caused by actions of a public authority. They would be relevant if a person wanted to argue that termination [i:3ad618df5b]per se [/i:3ad618df5b]has infringed his or her rights. The normal remedy would be JR, but the matter could also be raised in the course of an appeal against a benefits decision (whether at Tribunal level or higher I am not sure – see subsection (6)(a) which talks about an appeal against a Tribunal decision). But there would have to be an appeal going on in the first place for the Tribunal to deal with an application under s7 – and the problem with termination is that it needs a very awkward reading of Sched 7.6(3) to get the appeal off the ground. For exactly the same reasons, the applicant in the recent case of RJM (who wanted to challenge the validity of the homeless rates of applicable amount in IS) had to apply for JR because he wasn’t in a positoin to bring an appeal against the matter that aggrieved him.

Tell you what as well Stainsby – I’ll give you a penny to a quid Chris’s Chair hasn’t even thought about the HRA – s/he has just looked at the D&A Regs Schedule and concluded that it gives a right of appeal (which it doesn’t of course).

I still think HRA s3 is the only way to get termination into the Tribunal’s jurisdiction by closing your eyes and ears to the normal meaning of “relevant decision”. I wouldn’t want to say that is a promising argument until a Commissioner or Court has dealt with it.

So go on Chris – become a Benefits legend and take one to Commissioners[/i]