My client IS was removed in September 2006 following a suspension.
She wrote a letter seeking a review but no review was done and, for one reason or another, nothing else was done for quite some time.
Anyway, we've written to the JC+ seeking completion of the outstanding review, but they say that the letter was correctly not treated as an application for a review and are refusing to deal with it.
Also, the suspension, quite obviously to me, did not comply with the statutory requirements but the JC are maintaining that it did.
Overall, we are very unhappy with the way that our client's claim was handled and have complained.
We have now passed throught the first three stages of the complaints procedure and it looks set to continue.
The question is, is there any way that we can get this issue looked at other than by way of the complaints procedure? I consider that because the review was not done the client is still in the dispute period and so the possibilty of an in time exists. However, I'm sceptical about this becuase it revolves around a judgement as to whether the review request was sufficient.
The faulty suspension is also niggling at me a bit, but I think this is a red-herring since it would only be a reason for overturning the decision removing entitlement, for which we still need to get to a tribunal (suspension, of itself, not being an appealable decision).
I'm considering suggesting a judicial review of the decision not to admit the client's letter as a review.
I would be most grateful for any views on this issue, especially alternatives that I haven't considered or more simple ways of getting where we want to be.
There is a lot of money at stake (18 months of IS for a severely disabled person, including ISMI) and I have no faith that the matter will be fairly resolved by the complaint so I'm really interested in any ideas that will get us back in the statutory dispute procedures.
Thanks,
|