An EC claimant was receiving IBJSA jointly with her former partner (the main claimant). When she split from her partner, she visited her local JCP to notify them of her change of circumstances. She was misled by the advice and guidance of not one but two DWP officials, that, as she was pregnant, she should claim income support. She said she felt she could work, but made a claim for income support in reliance of the advice from two DWP officials. The DWP decided the claimant did not have RTR. As a result, her applicable amount for IS purposes was nil. Obviously, the misleading advice was an abuse of power by the S of State, and it was given to her detriment. The claimant appealed. The Tribunal was satisfied that she had a RTR from the date of her claim as she is a “qualified person”.’The Secretary of State requested permission to appeal the tribunal’s decision. Permission was granted and case reheard, where I discovered that the claimant could appeal against two decisions: (i) the decision terminating JSA; and (ii) the decision refusing IS. However, the tribunal decided not to consider the appeal about IS, pending the ‘Lassal?’ case, which is on appeal with the SSC. However, the Chair only considered if the appellant could be awarded IBJSA from the date she was wrongly advised to come off it and claim the wrong benefit. It was clear from the appellant’s oral evidence that she had been a “worker” for the purposes of Regulation 1612/68 before she claimed IS upon the wrong advice. However, the appeal about IBJSA was not allowed on ‘technical grounds’, i.e. that since it was the second time rather than the first time the client visited the Job Centre, she could not rely on the wrong advise by the DWP. Is this right??
In R(I) 15/53, the Commissioner said (paragraph 4): ‘A demand for strict compliance with legal forms would operate harshly in many cases if applied to claimants’. And in R(I) 50/56, the Commissioner treated a claim as an application for review, saying:
‘18. … it is essential that the determining authorities should not defeat a meritorious claim by a legal technicality.’
Any thoughts/Advice?