Secondary Legislation on appeal submission

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #39513
    clongden
    Participant

    Can anybody advise on the Secondary Legislation I can use in a submission to The Tribunal Service relating to using the DWP’s decision regarding a customer’s capital asset. I have looked at HB/CTB circular A12/2007 in relation to quotinq in my submission the Primary Legislation of The Welfare Reform Act 31 October 2007.

    In addition to the question above – does the circular apply to joint working fraud referrals between the DWP and The Local Authority when the customer appeals to the Local Authority.

    Any help will be greatly appreciated.

    Thank You Christine

    #112378
    Kevin D
    Participant

    The LA should be making its own decision under the HB/CTB legislation. The only time the legislation for the relevant DWP benefit matters is if the LA is going behind a DWP award of a passporting benefit.

    I’m also unclear why it would be necessary to refer to the Welfare Reform Act on capital issues. When working in benefits I only ever found it relevant to cite s.136 SSCBA 1992 and the relevant HB/CTB regulation(s ) and any relevant case law. In cases where the DWP had made a decision on IS / PC / JSA(IB), that was a matter for THAT benefit and fell for the DWP deal with, not the LA. I learnt to make it clear in my submissions that the LA had reached its own decision independently of the DWP and I also distinguished between relying on EVIDENCE held by the DWP and a DECISION made by the DWP.

    If there was a central issue in common between the benefits such as capital, I would ask that any concurrent appeal against the DWP benefit should be heard at the same time as the HB/CTB appeal and also learnt to ask for the LA to be joined as a party to the DWP appeal and vice-versa. Generally speaking, that approach worked reasonably well, notwithstanding the inability of TTS to keep on top of the cross-party administration that was required.

    The only time where the “other benefit” legislation is needed is where the LA is going behind the DWP’s decision on a passporting benefit** – I never had a case where this was necessary.

    ** For circumstances in which this can happen see [b]GB v LB Hillingdon (HB) [2010] UKUT 11 (AAC)[/b] (aka CH/1987/2009.

    #112388
    clongden
    Participant

    Thank you Kevin much apreciated Christine

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.