Can they appeal?

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #22495
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Partner is appealing against the inclusion of misc income that she received in her wages. We are 100% certain that this is correct.

    However, I am not so sure that the partner is a ‘person affected’. Can anyone confirm if she is?

    #8281
    Kevin D
    Participant

    Partner is not a person affected in the circumstances described – [b:44b1447e1c]DAR 3[/b:44b1447e1c].

    #8282
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Could the partner and not the claimant attend the appeal. She has previously stated she wants an oral hearing.

    We will write to her to advise that she is unable to appeal the decision but I can imagine the only thing that will happen is she will get her partner to appeal in writing and see if she can do the representation at appeal.Would she be able to do this?

    #8283
    Kevin D
    Participant

    The clmt is entitled to be represented by pretty much whoever they choose.

    I’d just make sure there is some form of signed authorisation from the clmt.

    Regards

    #8284
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Mr Commissioner Mesher held at para 14 of CH/3817/2004 that D&A Reg 3 is not exhaustive and that a partner could be considered to be a person affected by a decision:

    “I think that the Council and the Secretary of State are right in saying that “a claimant” in regulation 3(1)(a) must mean the claimant on whose claim the decision in question was given. Plainly, by virtue of regulation 3(2), it does not mean any person who has made any claim for HB or CTB. Nor do I think that it can mean a person who has made such a claim and can show an effect on her rights, duties and obligations. But where the Council and the Secretary of State go wrong is in arguing that regulation 3(2) provides an exhaustive specification of who can be a “person affected by a relevant decision”. Paragraph 23(2) of Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act allows regulations to specify who is to be treated as a person affected and who is not to be so treated. Regulation 3 only gives effect to the first part of that power. There is no express specification of persons who are not to be treated as persons affected and regulation 3(1) is not in the form of “a person is to be treated as a person affected … only where”. Thus, while regulation 3 conveniently puts the status of certain categories of person beyond argument, in my judgment it is still open to a person to argue that she is a person affected by a relevant decision for the purposes of paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act in the ordinary meaning to be given to that term.”

    #8285
    peterdelamothe
    Keymaster

    Hey, welcome back Stainsby!!!! We have all missed you putting your views across …. even if I for one rarely agreed with you.

    There are a lot more RSL members nowadays too.

    #8286
    Kevin D
    Participant

    It’s an interesting point made by stainsby (er, which I have shamelessly noted accordingly 🙂 ).

    However, having just scan read the CD in question, my view is that the ptnr in Chez’s case, based on the facts stated, is not a person affected.

    Regards

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.