Can anyone tell me if the clients signature is required on a request for a statement of reasons, considering that we were the representatives at the appeal.
Cheers

Over here we need to have a consent form signed by the client that includes all possible scenarios, eg, requesting statement of reasons and record of proceedings, appealling to commissioner etc because we have in the past been told that authority to represent covers only the hearing.

I've never had a problem. Based on authority (cannot for the life of me remember the reference - maybe someone else will provide it) authorisation at the outset is good until the appeal is finally exhausted, usually with the commissioner's final decision.

Regards
Paul

I think there is a CD which says that you need a specific authority to appeal to the Commissioner.

I've never had problems requesting a SOR where we've repped, but always get a fresh authority to actually put in the appeal to the Commissioner.

To my knowledge, there is no such specific requirement for an SOR request to be signed by a "person affected".

HOWEVER, speaking from the "other" side, there have been occasions where parties other than the "person affected" have attempted to pursue reconsiderations / SORs etc without the consent or knowledge of the person affected. Therefore, there are times where the signature of the "person affected" has been sought in order to ensure the request is actually made by the person affected. In short, it is to prevent abuse by third parties.

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that there is any abuse in this case - my post is simply to offer an explanation as to why an LA (& presumably the DWP on occasion) may seek such a signature.

Regards

Having seen the other responses....

Specifically related to HB/CTB appeals - those MUST be signed by the person affected. The only exceptions are to persons to whom HBR 71 applies.

A general authority by the clmt for a third party to act will not (normally) be sufficient <DAR 20(1)(b); R v LB Lambeth ex p Crookes (& others) (1998) EWHC Admin 167; Goodman v Eban <1954> CA>. This analysis is supported by the CPAG commentary, albeit reluctantly.

Regards

Thank you all very much.

fresh mandate not needed for statement of reasons
CDLA 0652 2004

"6 Of course, the authority to act for a client depends entirely on what is agreed between the client and the representative. But I see nothing in CSDLA 2 2001 that requires a further express authority to be produced by a representative, or be obtained from a client, before a statement of reasons is requested. Nor do I see any problem in law in the appeals tribunal accepting an application for a statement of reasons from a representative notified to the tribunal as representative by a client where there is no indication that the representative has a limited authority, or that the authority has been revoked. Regulation 33(1) of the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999 provides that an appeal to an appeal tribunal may be made either by a person with a right of appeal or “where the person … has provided written authority for a representative to act on his behalf, by that representative”. Regulation 49(8) separately allows anyone to be represented at a tribunal and gives the representative “all the rights and powers to which the person whom he represents is entitled”.

Fantastic Chris, just what I was looking for.
Cheers