Terms & Conditions

[Neil Adamson]

I know there have been some CD regarding post being issued by a LA but I need the reverse and am sure there must be some?

We identify an OP following the discovery that the claimant’s DLA ceased.

Claimant states they notified us that their DLA had ended and when heard nothing assumed all ok. To back this up they provide a copy of a hand written letter “to whom it may concern” allegedly written at the time and copied to disc (if this gets to TTS will be interesting to see of they know technically how to do this!).

We ask for them to bring the disc in (the intention was to check the date the document had been created). Unfortunately despite the fact they had kept a copy of this info for 8 months when they thought all was well , they decide to “shred” the disc a few days after their appeal is made!

In short we are of the opinion no such letter was issued?

[Kevin D]

In Sealy v Consignia, it was found that normal postal delivery is assumed to have occurred unless there is evidence to the contrary.

So, it’s all about credibility of the clmt. His story of shredding the disk has already made me smile….. 🙂 .

Based on the info given, I’d be fairly comfortable arguing that the clmt simply didn’t notify the LA. Here’s a thought….. What date is the clmt’s alleged letter? Is it worth contacting the DLA office to check the date of their notification letter to the clmt? The clmt’s case would be somewhat dented if it transpired that his letter to you was dated before he had even been notified…. :twisted:. In fact, there is a CD involving such circs – the clmt stated the LA had been notified of a cofc, but the Cmmr noted that the copy of alleged cofc letter was in fact dated before the clmt had been notified of the change…..! (sorry – can’t locate it).

Regards

[Neil Adamson]

It made me smile too! From the tone of their language I doubt that they realise they would need to scan the letter on but hat will come out at some point.

I have already instructed the assessor to make enquiries as their letter seems very timely indeed – DLA ended 01/02/06 and their letter is dated 05/02/06.

I hate these types of appeal, I have to think of nice ways to say “I think you are not telling the truth”!

[Kevin D]

Hmmm… nice ways of calling someone a liar…. This may prompt a long thread 🙂 .

1) the clmt’s statement(s) is(are) wholly contradicted by the evidence…..

2) it is submitted that the evidence does not support the clmt’s argument….

3) despite being asked, the clmt has notably failed to explain why there is a discrepancy between…..

4) the clmt’s statements / allegations are completely refuted by…..

5) it is submitted that the nature of the evidence is such that statements made to the contrary by the clmt cannot be given any reasonable degree of credibility…..

6) on (date), the clmt wrote “X”, but on (date) the clmt wrote “Y”. It is apparent that only one statement can be true.

*cough* *ahem*…..

By the way, anyone know a good lawyer? 😯

[peterdelamothe]

A good lawyer? For libel / slander/ Yep …

I like the word “discrepancy” although “untruth” seems popular with some Commissioners. “Confused as to the truth” is handy too.

It seems to me that there are two seperate issues here:

a) was the letter written? If the claimant has stated this then that is evidence that must be accepted until and unless it can be factually disproved or there are reasonable grounds to ignore it (previous history of the claim will help here).

b) was the letter posted or is it claimed it was delivered to the designated office? If the former, then I think it is now clear case-law that is not normally sufficient to meet the statutory requirements. The latter reminds me of a claimant who was adamant she had posted a letter in the letterbox at the Town Hall extension. I invited the Review Board to inspect the extension – there was no post box. Her case fell apart.

[Stalbansbenefits]

Do you even have to get heavily involved in the question of the credibilty of the claimant’s statement in such a case? For example, even if the claimant [i:7a07e9e8cc]did[/i:7a07e9e8cc] post the letter but, for whatever reason, it did not reach the Local Authority, then surely there is no LA error and the overpayment is recoverable, even if the claimant is not ‘at fault’.

Is the claimant alledging that you have lost the letter? In which case, I would have thought you would only have to demonstrate how robust your post opening / sorting / scanning procedures are (CH/1362/2003). It would then be down to the appellant to prove the letter had been sent…

[Kevin D]

One of my favourite quotes….(and only a little out of context)

[quote:1c064c9806]”I am not sure how much of her evidence was dishonest but even the honest evidence appears to me to be unreliable…..”[/quote:1c064c9806]

Cmmr Rowland in CH/4882/2002 (p14).

[John Boxall]

I just put ‘The Tribunal’s attention is draw to……………..’ clear, concise & I think the apellant would be hard pressed to take offence.

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

[petedavies]

CH/0609/2004 may be of some use:

“What happens if the claimant reports a change of circumstances to the local authority, but hears nothing in reply? I cannot imagine any circumstances in which the claimant could reasonably conclude from silence that benefit was being correctly paid. In the absence of confirmation that there was no change in entitlement, there are always other possibilities that at least require investigation. One is that the local authority did not receive the claimant’s notification. Another is that it has been mislaid or overlooked. A third is that the local authority has not yet got round to dealing with it”

[jmembery]

Have you looked at
Levy v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions [2006]
I think it is still good law.

[Neil Adamson]

Some excellent suggestions there.

Thank you all

[Author]

Posts