Terms & Conditions

[michaelb]

If an appeal is out of time and I do not agree with the reasons for it’s lateness. Do I need to send a full submission at this point? or do I send a letter to the TS to see if they will accept the appeal?

Thanks

[Anonymous]

Yes, send an AT37 and a short submission explaining that the appeal is late and you do not support the late application. You will only need to include copies of documents which establish the date of notification and the date of appeal…although I’m sure Kevin will want to add to my comments!

[Kevin D]

[quote:267431eebc]although I’m sure Kevin will want to add to my comments![/quote:267431eebc]

Well, it’s not so much “want”, as “can”…… 😯

On the front page of the “mini-submission”, I put the following in large bold font:

[size=18:267431eebc][b:267431eebc]LATE APPEAL – unsupported by the Local Authority[/b:267431eebc][/size:267431eebc]

It’s well worth clearly setting out the reasons as to why the appeal is not supported. For what it’s worth, I normally follow the usual 7-section format for the “mini-submission”. It’s just much shorter than usual.

Regards

[michaelb]

Can I make the writing even larger than that? 😉

Phew sounds good as I was getting contradicting information from different sources.

Going to sound thick but what is the ‘7 section format for a mini submission’

Thanks as always

[Anonymous]

See the template in the Library section of this site:

https://hbinfo.org/library/appealsubstemplate.doc

There are also other useful appeals templates there, for which I think thanks are due to Kevin.

[Anonymous]

It’s the regular 7-section format for any submission (personal details, index of docs, decision, appeal, chronology of facts, law, your Council’s argument) – it’s just that there isn’t a great deal to say in these sections when it’s a mini-submission

[Kevin D]

Andy,

Much as I’d like to bask in the credit for the templates, they weren’t submitted by me :).

[John Boxall]

I used to do ‘Mini’ submissions but found that TTS accepted them so often that overall it was quicker to do a full one.

It also gave me the ability to give full reasons as to why the claimant had no reasonable chance of success as required under Reg 19 of the DMA regulations.

Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery. The blossom is blighted, the leaf is withered, the god of day goes down upon the dreary scene, and—and in short you are for ever floored.

Wilkins Micawber, Ch12 David Copperfield

[Kevin D]

John,

I’m curious as to why you wait until compiling a full submission before addressing the chances of success. In “mini-submissions” for late unsupported appeals, I address any of the issues that are relevant to that particular late appeal. Including:

[b:f7aff5f6f5]1) has the clmt’s late appeal actually requested an extension of time?[/b:f7aff5f6f5]

Note: Where a clmt has not done so, I always write back to the clmt explaining that they must ask for an extension of time. If no reply, I make it clear in the “mini-submission” that if a late appeal can only be admitted if [b:f7aff5f6f5]DAR 20(1)[/b:f7aff5f6f5] has been satisfied. That is then invariably followed with something along the lines of: “In the opinion of the LA, the appellant has failed to satisfy that provision”.

[b:f7aff5f6f5]2) has the appellant given particulars of grounds on which an extension of time limit is sought, along with special circumstances?[/b:f7aff5f6f5]

Note: This is an express requirement and is in addition to the basic request for an extenstion of the time limit. Always bear in mind that the “special circs” are strictly limited to those set out in [b:f7aff5f6f5]HBR 19(7)[/b:f7aff5f6f5]. If the clmt has failed to satisfy this requirement, this is again pointed out in the mini-submission in the context of it being a [b:f7aff5f6f5]mandatory[/b:f7aff5f6f5] requirement.

In addition to the above:

[b:f7aff5f6f5]3) Does the appeal have a reasonable prospect of success? OR;
Is it in the interests of justice for the application [for an extension of time limit] to be granted?
[/b:f7aff5f6f5]
In my view, the LA is not entitled to comment on the first part of this equation, other than mention it neutrally as being an alternative consideration to be considered. The first part is specifically for a panel member to consider [[b:f7aff5f6f5]DAR 19(5)(a)[/b:f7aff5f6f5]]. However, my view is that an LA can comment on the second part [[b:f7aff5f6f5]DAR 19(5)(b)[/b:f7aff5f6f5]] to the extent of stating that, having carefully considered the application, the LA is not satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for the application to be granted. [Note: a panel member can find differently).

In looking at the “interests of justice” issue, this can only be satisfied if:

a) any of the special circs in DAR 19(7) [u:f7aff5f6f5]are relevant to the application[/u:f7aff5f6f5]; OR

b) some other special circumstances exist which are wholly exceptional [u:f7aff5f6f5]and[/u:f7aff5f6f5] [u:f7aff5f6f5]relevant to the application[/u:f7aff5f6f5]

[b:f7aff5f6f5]AND [to either a, or b]:[/b:f7aff5f6f5]

[u:f7aff5f6f5]as a result of those special circumstances[/u:f7aff5f6f5], it was not practicable for the appeal to be made within the time limit referred to in regulation 18

Also, specifically in respect of the “interests of justice” issue, the longer the time delay in making a late appeal, the more compelling the “special circumstances” must be [[b:f7aff5f6f5]DAR 19(8 )[/b:f7aff5f6f5]]. Further, still on the issue of “interests of justice”, it may also be relevant to draw attention to [b:f7aff5f6f5]DAR 19(9)[/b:f7aff5f6f5].
—————————————

Maybe I should submit a template with sample content to HBINFO….. I’ll have a think about that.

Regards

[John Boxall]

Er what I meant is that I just send TTS a full submission saying basically it’s out of time anyway ie do a ful one and send it to them instead of a ‘mini’ so that if they accept it I dont have to write another

Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery. The blossom is blighted, the leaf is withered, the god of day goes down upon the dreary scene, and—and in short you are for ever floored.

Wilkins Micawber, Ch12 David Copperfield

[Anonymous]

[quote:060b0589d6=”Kevin D”]
[b:060b0589d6]3) Does the appeal have a reasonable prospect of success? OR;
Is it in the interests of justice for the application [for an extension of time limit] to be granted?
[/b:060b0589d6]
In my view, the LA is not entitled to comment on the first part of this equation, other than mention it neutrally as being an alternative consideration to be considered. [/quote:060b0589d6]

The problem with that is if you don’t comment in some way about the likely prospect of success, TTS just accept every late appeal. That’s our experience anyway.

I suppose you have to look at it from their point of view, they can accept any appeal within the maximum time limit that has a reasonable prospect of success regardless of whether it is in the interests of justice or not. So you have to give them enough information to make a decision on whether there is a reasonable prospect of success otherwise how are they to decide? I don’t think there’s any harm in suggesting that based on the facts the LA doesn’t think there is whilst accepting it’s not their decision to make.

[Kevin D]

Ed,

I see no problem in commenting on the issue of prospects of success, so long as the comment is neutral. The reason for my distinction is the wording of [b:8e08d6140b]DAR 19(5)(a)[/b:8e08d6140b] which limits consideration of that specific issue to a panel member. Sub para [b:8e08d6140b](b)[/b:8e08d6140b] clearly allows LAs to consider the issue of “interests of justice” and, therefore, I think the LA has a bit more leeway to be a touch argumentative I suppose, the difference is that for “success”, I’d just lay down the facts; whereas for “justice”, I’d draw conclusions along the lines of “in the opinion of the LA, the appellant has failed to satisfy the requirement(s) of paras (5)(b) / (6) / (7) (8 ) of [b:8e08d6140b]DAR 19[/b:8e08d6140b]…..”

In my experience, the main problems tend to centre on the first two points. LAs sometimes overlook the [u:8e08d6140b]requirement[/u:8e08d6140b] for the clmt to firstly apply for an extension of the time limit and, then, the [u:8e08d6140b]requirement[/u:8e08d6140b] for “particulars of grounds” for the request.

As a rough estimate, over half of the late appeals I’ve dealt with first hand failed to satisfy the “particulars of grounds” requirement – even following “plain English” requests for “reasons” for the delay in appealing etc. Without the grounds, an appeal cannot (legally) be admitted and I have emphasised this when compiling “mini-submissions”.

Regards

[Anonymous]

Okay yes I see what you mean. We would tend to make a brief comment on the likelihood of success usually indicating in passing that we don’t think so, and have never been told that it’s not appropriate. We wouldn’t go into any depth on our opinion however so whilst not as neutral as you feel appropriate, we’re not really arguing a case either.

We’ve never had problems with submissions where no extention is requested or no grounds given; I don’t recall TTS having accepted one of these.

When it boils down to it though, once the customer has jumped through the hoops of requesting an extension and saying why they want one, it all becomes totally irrelevant to TTS since they can accept an appeal simply because it has a reasonable chance of success even if the reasons for requesting the extension are pathetic.

It’s something of a mystery to me why the “interests of justice” stuff needs to be there at all; the tribunal gets the final say and all they have to do is look at it, think “well, it might win” and as long as it’s within 13 months of the decision they can then just accept it.

The only time a tribunal might need to think about whether there are special circumstances etc would be where they don’t think there is a reasonable prospect of success. Seems a bit strange to me. 😕

Ed

[Anonymous]

I think I can see why the LA has the power to accept under the “interests of justice” head, but not under the “reasonable prospects of success” head.

The LA’s function in screening/gatekeeping appeals is to add some value to the process – if it is more efficient for the Council to do something locally without bothering the Tribunal, it might as well do so. Accepting a late appeal because it was delayed for one of the specified reasons or some other wholly exceptional event like abduction by aliens is something the Council can usefully do to save time.

But presumably if the Council thought the claimant stood a fair chance of winning they wouldn’t be bothering to take 80% of appeals to Tribunal in the first place – most appeals go to Tribunal because the Council is convinced it has made the right decision and the claimant is equally convinced they haven’t. The Council would not be adding much value to the efficiency of the process if it had to consider the “reasonable prospects” ground locally.

Equally, while I don’t see anything improper in the Council submitting an argument on the “reasonable prospects” issue (as long as it is clearly flagged as the Council’s argument in section 7 of the mini-submission and fenced off from the impartial “friend of the court” bits), it’s not particularly efficient to do that – you might as well just do a full submission. If you are going to argue in detail that the claimant’s appeal is doomed to fail, isn’t this what you do in s7 of the full submission? You just wouldn’t be saving yourself or the Tribunal any time if you did that at the late appeal screening stage.

This was the reason why the old misconceived appeal routine was ditched: to comply with the screening procedure in the Regs the Tribunal virtually had to hear the full appeal anyway – complete waste of time.

[michaelb]

Thank you very much for all the replies in this thread.

I have been away on holiday and just got back in today, so sorry for not saying thanks any sooner

I was relieved to realise I knew what the 7 section submission was as I do already do that *phew*

[Author]

Posts