Anyone done an appeal following the Tribunal of Commissioners decision re unlawfulness of not issuing decisions on a "defective" claim, and if so how has it gone? I'm particularly interested in the argument that the anti test case rules do not apply as my case concerns a decision made before the Commissioners decision.

Is there really no one who has done an appeal on this issue? I have one case from a decision made before the Commrs decision but it takes about 3 - 4 months before appeals reach someones desk at the momemnt here so there has been no progress as yet.

I had an appeal that was 'stayed' pending the outcome of the decision regarding defective claims, (amongst many other things), and I was the LA's appeals officer taking the case to TAS, but I left the authority concerned before the hearing... though I did leave a recommendation requesting that ‘defective claim’ be remedied, by ‘nil-ing’ it, making an ‘adverse decision’. Mr Richard Poynter was issuing the Interlocutory decisions staying the appeal, so I expect he would have been the Chair....

But... the good news is that LASA were acting as the claimants rep... Perhaps they can say what happened at the hearing regarding that issue... as I know of no other cases, but there definitely was one... Over to you?

I had, today, a case on that issue

client made a claim for benefit including a request for backdating

LA made a decision on backdating (they refused it)& client appealed. LA made no decision on the claim itself. When I asked them why, they said that the client had failed to comply with a request for further evidence on student income (she had actually complied with the request, but the decision maker felt that there was a further document that she could provide and instead of asking specifically for this he just 'lapsed' the claim under reg 76)

client appealed the 'non notified' decision not to award benefit at all and it was directed that both appeals be heard together. it turns out that tthe LA backed down and made a positive decision on the evidence she had provided. Unfortunately neither myself, the chair or the client knew about this until the hearing today...

regarding the specific case referred to above by the (former?) Presenting Officer for a certain South London Borough: it is due to be heard at the end of the month. Are you still intending to be there?

Paul, No sorry I am no longer the appeals and pres officer for that London LA... I left sunny London to travel to sunny Leeds to study law in October... (I know that the current appeals & pres Officer reads this forum, so I would hope that the case has been revised, to take into account the decision of the Commissioners on defective claims?). If Richard Poynter hears the appeal, he won't be happy (I don't think he likes me actually, as I tend to be argumentative... and I know that he didn't like the revised submission that I had to do, as the previous one was appalling... So perhaps it's better that I am not there anyway...).

I am currently 'keeping my hand in' so to speak, and have a great appeal with a W. London authority... But am quite surprised to hear that the appeal I mentioned has not been heard yet, I was pushing TAS for a hearing on that last September... If it has become more complicated... good luck to everyone (for everyone reading this post, it's a HB appeal with many issues, and the defective claim part is only a tiny, inchy winchy part of it)...

Lasa specialist support recent advised an agency on a HB appeal to the Commissioners. In January 2004 the LA had argued that Reg 76(2) applied to a client's claim - ie: that it was defective. A tribunal agreed. In the the chairs reasons for granting leave to appeal the chair explicity applied CH/2155/2003 - the case law which decided that Reg 76(2) was ultra vires - to the client's case. As CH/2155/2003 was decided on 9/9/2004 that chair was clearly not applying the anti test case rules.

Hope that helps.