It’s not clear what the decision was – i.e.
1) suspension, then termination; OR
2) supersession (i.e. change of circs re capital) on the basis of drawing an inference from the clmt’s failure to supply evidence ([b:f2fd238a68]see R(H) 3/05[/b:f2fd238a68]).
The clmt definitely has the right of appeal in the second scenario. In the view of some (myself included), the first option is also appealable on HRA grounds. However, the DWP’s position is that a termination is not appealable.
Either way, the appeal must still go to TTS. If you take the view that there is no right of appeal, it is up to TTS to make the final decision. If you accept there is a right of appeal, it shouldbe dealt with as normal; but I’d suggest making it clear in the submission that the LA has no record of ever receiving the evidence in question. [b:f2fd238a68]ALSO[/b:f2fd238a68], there is nothing to stop you writing a covering letter asking the Tribunal to consider issuing a DIRECTION to the clmt requiring her to furnish the evidence in question. If the clmt refuses, the Tribunal will be none too impressed.
Regards