Ok……..
A decision has been made, but the clmt has not been notified. But, the clmt has appealed.
I’d reproduce the notifications to the clmt and continue with the appeal to Tribunal fully acknowledging what has happened.
In particular, I’d cover at least these issues:
1) a decision was made – late notification does not change that fact
2) clmt has been notified, albeit late
3) the clmt has not suffered prejudice or harm (after all, he has been able to appeal).
4) “Future” excess benefit is always recoverable, even if caused in consequence of an official error [[b:1fd69fd206]CTBR 83(5) + CH/4227/2004 (p52)[/b:1fd69fd206]]. The”future” period starts from the day after the date of the [u:1fd69fd206]decision[/u:1fd69fd206] – not the notification.
In anticipation of arguments about having to prove / show that a decision was made, “reasonable” evidence only is required (e.g. computer prints) – it doesn’t have to be a “detective novel” (quote from [b:1fd69fd206]CH/2349/2002 (p 6-9 & 12)[/b:1fd69fd206]).
If the Tribunal decides that the clmt appeal succeeds on the grounds of non-notification, point out that the only effect will be to delay the inevitable while the LA duly notifies that clmt.
In case it’s of interest, other CDs where evidence of decisions was at issue are:
[b:1fd69fd206]CH/3439/2004 (para 9)
R(H) 01/02 – CH/3776/2001 (paras 7-9)
CH/0216/2003 (paras 7, 13-16)
CH/4099/2002 (paras 5, 9-11)
CH/1417/2005 (p11)
CH/3526/2002 (p4)
CSHB/0135/2003 (paras 4,5,7,8 )
CH/1905/2003 (p5-10)
CH/3275/2003 (p7+)
CH/4354/2003
CH/5623/2002
CSHB/0464/2003
CH/1457/2005 (p5)
CSHC/0343/2003[/b:1fd69fd206]
Only in a couple or so did the Cmmr find the LAs evidence of a decision so poor that it was found as a fact that no decision had been made.
Regards
.
