Negative inferences

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #22029
    NeilC
    Participant

    Hi. Probably going over old ground but would be grateful for some advice.
    If we make a negative inference on a new claim and the customer then provides the information within 1 month, do we have to revise our original decision. Only ask because the customer has been evasive and dragged this claim on for an age. Cheers.

    #6435
    Kevin D
    Participant

    You don’t HAVE to revise – it can be argued that, at the time of the decision, the decision was correct. However, the majority of LAs would revise their decision (assuming you are now “happy” that the evidence is sufficient).

    Just for clarity, the LA needs to be clear which decision it made. Was the decision:

    a) that the clmt failed to provide evidence (a perfectly legitimate decision in its own right), or
    b) that an adverse inference was drawn (presumably based on the failure to provide evidence).

    The clmt has the right of appeal.

    NB: A Tribunal cannot consider events occurring after the date of the decision, so will not (legally) be able to look at the late provision of evidence if the clmt appeals.

    Regards

    #6436
    NeilC
    Participant

    In this case it was b. Cheers for the advice. Looks like will probably pay. Less hassle.

    #6437
    Anonymous
    Guest

    An LA can not decide that someone has not provided evidence. That is a determination embodied in the outcome decision

    If an application is made for revision within the time limit, I dont see how the LA can refuse.

    Furthermore if the LA does refuse, the Tribunal is free to make whatever decison it likes based on the evidence to hand as to the material facts (ie the circumstances ) pertaining at the time of the decision. Evidence produced at a later date is admissible providing it relates to the facts pertaining at the relevant time

    There is a distinction between the primary facts, and secondary facts that are inferred from them. LA’s often get these issues confused, and so end up losing at Tribunal or before the Commissioner.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.