Hi there. Long time listener, first time caller.
My Local Authority has recently decided to reject my appeal requests on the grounds that the request contains two documents. The grounds of appeal letter is signed by me, and the form of authority is signed by the client.
I now have to draft the grounds of appeal on a blank document and get the client to sign it and send to the Authority.
Someone did mention that there was a bit of a debate ongoing about this issue.
Does anyone have any thoughts etc?
Thanks

As "Local Authority" has been mentioned, I'm assuming this relates to either HB or CTB.

HB/CTB appeals must be signed by the person with the right of appeal. Some LAs seem to accept general, non-specific, authorities/mandates for a third party to act on behalf of etc as being sufficient. In my view, it is not.

My advice would be to get the appellants to countersign the letter originally signed by you.

As an aside, you state the appeals have been reject by the LA. The LA does not have the authority to reject appeals - they only have authority to ask that the appeals are made good. Only a Tribunal clerk has the authority to reject an appeal.

If the LA refuses to accept countersigned letters, insist they are forwarded to TTS. If the LA refuses, write to TTS explaining the situation and asking that TTS directs the LA to follow the law.

Hope this helps.

For HB appeals made from 3/11/08 there is no longer any requirement for the notice of appeal to be signed by the appellant. The reference to such a requirement in regulation 20 of the HB Decisions & Appeals Regs has been removed by paragraph 162 of schedule 1 of The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Order 2008.

Paragraph 1 of Reg 20 now states “a notice of appeal made in accordance with Tribunal Procedure Rules must be made on a form approved by the relevant authority, or in such other format as the relevant authority may accept, and sent or delivered to the relevant authority”.

Appeal notices are made in accordance with Rule 23 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-Tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008. Rule 11(5) of those rules states “anything permitted or required to be done by a party under these rules, a practice direction or a direction may be done by the representative of that party, except signing a witness statement”.

In other words, as with DWP appeals, it is now sufficient for the claimant to sign a form of authority and the representative can sign the appeal form/letter.

I expect that a lot of LA’s will take quite a long time to catch up with thid change just as they are still doing with the changes brought in by the D&A Regs.

I need to get up to speed with the new rules.... .

(Or, is this perhaps the time to leave benefits? But that's another story....)

Nevip is right about the fact that LAs will take time to take on board the new rules. The rules, even though known about for some time, just seem to have "arrived", with little "chatter" about what has changed. As has been amply demonstrated by my post, it's one of those cases where, "Yes it's happened, but there is so much other stuff to try and stay on top of.....".

It may not be the LAs fault.
From circular A21/2008
"New Appeals System"


Notice of appeal
10 To be treated as duly made, the notice of appeal must be signed by the appellant and should include
name and address of appellant and any representative
address where documents for the appellant should be sent
details of the decision that is being appealed
details as to why the appellant thinks the decision may be wrong2.
1The Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2001 (HB CTB (D&A) Regs), reg 20; 2TP (FtT) (SEC) Rules, rule 23(6)

The North West Tribunals Service recently held a series of meetings to explain the impact of the new rules, which were extremely helpful. There were separate meetings for reps and DWP/LA staff. It might be useful for other regions to do the same.

Some of the other more important points and changes, which are likely to be more common, are as follows:

One of the overriding objectives is “avoiding unnecessary formality and seeking flexibility in the proceedings”. All other rules are subject to the overriding objectives (rule 2).

A party’s case may be struck out if “the tribunal considers there is no reasonable prospect of the appellant’s case, or part of it, succeeding”. However, this cannot be done without giving the party the opportunity to make representations (rule 8).

Once the hearing has started an appellant can only withdraw his appeal with the permission of the tribunal. This applies even during the period of any adjournment of the proceedings until the re-hearing (rule 17).

The appellant has 1 month from the date that the DWP/LA submission is sent to him to send in evidence and any written submissions (rule 24). However, note that all rules are subject to rule 2 and the overriding objectives (see above, re-seeking flexibility).

Also, note rule 23 which clearly identifies the appellant and the representative as separate entities, and, notwithstanding rule 11(5) and the common law of agency, it was conceded at the meeting that rule 24 imposes no strict liability on representatives to act within the month.

However, it should also be noted that representatives have a duty under rule 2(4) to co-operate with the tribunal and to help further the overriding objectives, one of which is to avoid delay.

Unless both party’s consent to a decision without a hearing then the tribunal must hold an oral hearing “before making a decision which disposes of proceedings” (rule 27). Crucially this includes a decision not to grant a late appeal.

An additional ground for set aside is where “there has been some other procedural irregularity in the proceedings” (rule 37).

When seeking permission (replaces the word “leave”) the party must now state the result that he is seeking (rule38)

Thanks for the info.

Couldn't make the TUG meeting...there is now - it seems -more clarity, but - as ever - practice and procedure in the forthcoming months will demonstrate where we go with the changes in the law/interpretation etc.

Nevip...the "strict liability"/compliance issue on appellant/rep is interesting...but I still can't see many situations where the acceptance of evidence on behalf of an appellant will be allowed "differently" than if by appellant themselves...of course the "overriding objectives" argument will always be a "safety net" provison which allows tribunals a degree of flexibility and informality....it has in fact always been there in spirit.

Generally, the appeals system already works (procedurally) well enough for us here....but any changes, particularly ones which seem to lack certain definition and rely on procedural discretion do worry me...especially as I say as time (and govt policy) moves along.

Hi Pete

What was said at the meeting regarding rule 24 was that one of the intentions of the rule was to deter those representatives whose types of practice was seeing clients at the last minute. Or, to say to the DWP, look this is what we expect from reps so we expect the same expedient action from you. Or to expect reps not to sit on evidence and then produce it at the last minute.

It was acknowledged that evidence will be supplied ‘late’ and as long as there is a proper explanation then there should not be a problem. As you know, the common law right, and article 6 right, to a fair hearing allows for evidence with probative value to be submitted at any time.

A tribunal which doesn’t allow it to be admitted at all will almost certainly fall into error, particularly if there is a good reason for its timing. And, of course, it still doesn’t stop chairs ticking off reps who don’t have a good reason for sending evidence in ‘late’.

However, I do share your concerns somewhat but, as you say, time will tell.

Regards
Paul

Pete might not have gone along but I did (and poorly attended it was too). I've been intending to write a brief synopsis for my colleagues so cheers Paul - you've saved me a job !

*bump*

Someone has kindly brought this to my attention... Rule 23(6) still contains a requirement for an appeal to be signed by the appellant (along with much of the guts of the former DAR 20(1)). I'm just ever so slightly embarrassed to have overlooked this.... .