Strange one this. Anybody had any experience of a Tribunal changing its mind between handing you the decision on the day and sending the staement of reasons?

We partially won a Hab res case on workseeker grounds, but the JC+ requested statement of reasons (despite not turning up, harrumph). The statement arrives with the starting line 'the decision issued on the day was incorrect' and goes on to say she didn't have R2R because she wasn't a worker.

My initial thoughts are clearly that you can't do that and that its the decision that matters not the reasons provided later. But do I appeal against it? Does the JC+? I can't imagine persuading JC+ agreeing to pay out on the basis of the decision itself but are they going to apeal against a statement of reasons that they agree with?

Any thoughts on what appears to be a bit of a canine early morning snack?

Andy

The final paragraph of the commentary to Reg’56 of the D&A Regs may be worth quoting in full.

“A decision is only effective when it is sent out (R(I)14/74. Until then, it may be altered informally. Even if an oral ‘decision’ has been given, the case may be recalled by the tribunal before it is sent out, if it appears to them that they have made a serious mistake (CI/141/1987, applying Re Harrison’s share (1955) Ch 260). Generally it would be necessary to have a rehearing”.

Thus, in my view, once a written decision is notified to the claimant then only accidental errors in the decision notice itself can be altered and not the decision itself. It would be up to the DWP to request leave to appeal and until that is granted and the decision set aside by a district chair or commissioner then the decision should still stand.

If the decision still stands then a fresh set of reasons should be sent out. Leave to appeal should then be sought on the ground that the decision was based on a false proposition of law, on its face.

Regards
Paul

Thanks Paul. However we were given a written summary decision on the day so I'm not sure that guidance applies. I agree with you that the original decision should stand.

I'm toying with the idea of simply writing to the District Chair arguing that the Tribunal has exceeded its powers and seeing what happens, keeping a close eye on the time limits for an appeal. I might ring the decision maker and see what their attitude is as well cos its hardly satisfactory from their point of view either.

Cheers

Andy

A CD which *may* be of at least some help is CA/4297/2004.

Although that case was about two separately issued statements of reasons, there may be something in it to assist.

You'll want to have a look at CI/3887/1999 which dealt with the power of the tribunal to correct the date of onset for a dis ben award in a statement.

"8. In this case I do not consider any of the alterations are such as to fall within the scope of regulation 56. That applies only to accidental errors. Especially now that the power can be exercised by the Secretary of State (whose employee the clerk to the tribunal is), it is a power to be exercised only for a genuine error or omission such as a typing mistake or misspelling of a name or an omission about which both sides, if asked, would agree. It cannot be used to remove an error of law central to the appeal. It is not a procedure to be used as a short-cut to avoid an appeal or set-aside, and any use for that purpose is an abuse of purpose."

I'd strongly recommend that you apply for leave to appeal.

Cheers

David

Again thanks all, David, I agree that I should cover my back and apply for leave but will see if anything else works in the meantime.

Hmmm, on thinking about this a bit more, us applying for leave would allow the Chairman to set the decision aside under s.13(2) SSA and we don't really want that. Still thinking about this one...

Got a bit of a different case but it still amounts to a change of mind.

At a tribunal in early April this year my client was awarded DLA HRM and the LRC was unchanged. I requested written reasons and on reading them found the decision in the written reasons had been changed to no entitlement to care or mobility.

I've got to wait now to see if DWP challenge to tribunal decision.

Update on this, a new statement has been produced saying the original favourable decision stands but saying that it is incorrect and that 'consideration should be given to setting it aside'. This last line is a bit odd as a decion can't be set aside unles someone applies for leave and I'm not going to do that.

However, suppose it is a clear hint to the department to apply and I am concerned that if they do it will just be set aside under s.13(2). I will write and insist on being consulted if the DWP do aply for leave ad see if that makes any diference.

Andy

If the DWP apply for leave to appeal you, as the respondent, will be sent a copy of their application and given a chance to respond in writing. You will then need a legal argument as to why leave should be refused. In other words, is the DWP's interpretation of the law (as opposed to the tribunal chair's interpretation) correct. Good luck, let us know how it goes.

Regards
Paul

Cheers Paul, I know they are supposed to do that but not sure it has always been followed in my experience so was going to write to remind them.

Also, I'm less bothered about leave being granted (if it gets before a Commissioner I plan to concede error of law but ask to substitute equivalent decision). Its being set aside under S.13(2) SSA I'm mostly worried about.

Its annoying that there's so much faff over what is about £250 at stake ie less than the cost of a new hearing.