Not duly made?

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
  • #23081
    Neil Adamson

    A colleague has a case where an appeal was received stating our decision was not fair as he didn’t get enough.

    With no further grounds forthcoming it was referred as not duly made.

    This has been returned from TAS stating it has been allowed as duly made.

    Do we have the right to question their decision further or are we now obliged to complete a submission covering every possible avenue?



    It would have been one of the old misconceived appeals (if they still existed). Therefore the appeal has to be submitted so TTS can tell them “no can change regs” etc.


    Do I know what I'm doing? The jury's out on that........................

    Kevin D

    If the appeal is simply on the grounds that the clmt isn’t getting enough, there is no right of appeal to a Tribunal. So long as there is no dispute about income / household, it should be struck out as OOJ.

    [b:7efc2ca67f]CSPSSA 2000; Sch 7, para 6(2)(d)[/b:7efc2ca67f] applies.

    A suggested Section 7 of a “mini-submission” might go like this:

    1) The Tribunal is asked to decide whether or not Mr Claimant’s appeal is out of its jurisdiction.

    2) In the opinion of the LA, Mr Claimant is effectively appealing against the rates of benefit.

    Mr Claimant does not seem to be disputing the calculation of his income, nor the composition of the household as determined by the LA. In turn, the appeal can only be against any of:

    a) the disregards applied to income (and/or capital), and/or
    b) the rates of Applicable Amounts, and/or
    [ if PT c) the Maximum Rent set by the Rent Officer]

    3) The LA submits that no appeal can lie against any of the matters set out in “2)” above; this being by virtue of the CSPSSA 2000 (Schedule 7). In particular, the LA submits that the rate(s) of Applicable Amount and the amount(s) to be disregarded from income are matters that are subject to para 6(2)(d) of Schedule 7.

    [Edit as needed] There is no provision in Schedules 4, 5 or 6 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 to allow the LA to take into account any outgoings listed by Mr Claimant.

    In addition to the above, an appeal cannot lie against the LA’s adoption of a Rent Officer’s decision by virtue of para 6(2)(c) of Schedule 7 under the CSPSSA 2000.

    4) In summary, the LA submits that Mr Claimant’s appeal falls to be struck out on the basis that the grounds of his appeal are outside the jurisdiction of an appeal tribunal.



    Bitter experience tells me TTS will accept it anyhow so a full submission is the likely end result in any case.

    Kevin, I don’t doubt your analysis, but I do doubt TTS’ ability to stick to the facts. Besides they’d argue his right to a fair hearing.

    Do I know what I'm doing? The jury's out on that........................

    Neil Adamson

    Thanks for the answers so far.

    The appeal just said he didn’t think the assessment was fair as he didn’t get enough.

    We wrote and requested further information to help us identify the grounds for the appeal but we received no response.

    A mini submission was sent containing all of the appropriate documentation which has been returned with a decision that the appeal is duly made and a full submission should be made.

    What confuses me is that an almost identical case was thrown out by them as not duly made.

    Kevin D


    Try another mini-submission – all sections as usual (so that it has the *appearance* of a full submission), but limited strictly to the OOJ issue. In big bold type on the front page, write “Out of Jurisdiction”. It strikes me that someone simply hasn’t looked at it properly, or doesn’t know the law.

    It’s puzzling that there seems to be so much trouble with OOJs and unsupported late appeals. To date, I’ve never had such an appeal admitted (er, that’s blown it…).

    And, even if the appeal is “fully” admitted, I have no doubt whatsoever that any decision against the LA would be overturned by Comms.

    Howabout asking for an explanation, “respectfully” pointing out that there is no legal basis on which an appeal can be entertained by the Tribunal.

    Forestall HRA arguments by referring to case law (can’t recall at the moment, but I think it went to the House of Lords), which confirms that rates of benefit don’t fall foul of the HRA.

    [Edit]: Just idly wondering; is life really so twisted that “respect” has to be expressed for incompetence…..? Apparently it is.


Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.