I’ve sent a letter to our LA stating Review/Appeal of a decision on an overpayment. The letter states grounds and is accompanied by a signed mandate. I also stated that this letter should be treated as an appeal request should the revision not be in my clients favour.

The LA have issued a letter stating they will not revise the original decision and giving us the right to appeal. They advise that an appeal must now be lodged and that the client must sign the appeal letter.

My question is, why are the LA asking for another appeal letter and why are they requiring the client to signed the letter despite me having a signed mandate?

Thanks.

They appear to have treated your first letter as a request for a recon - strange quirk in the HB/CTB regs - the claimant has to personally sign the appeal whereas in DWP benefits we can sign on behalf if we have a mandate...yet another of life's unfathomable mysteries ...

Mon 18-Aug-08 11:00 AM by Kevin D

There is increasing argument on the issue of the requirement for signatures on appeals.

However, DAR 20(1)(b) expressly requires that the appeal itself is signed by the person with the right of appeal. The majority of LAs interpret that to mean that a general mandate / notice of authority is not sufficient to meet the signature requirement.

In my view, that is the correct interpretation. In CH/1972/2007, the Cmmr seems to suggest that all of the provisions of DAR 20 must be met in order for a late application have effect - I can't see any reason why this would be different for an in-time appeal, nor that the signature requirement should be treated differently.

Further, in "Crookes", a third party's signature was not considered to be sufficient; although, the current CPAG cites further case law suggesting that there are arguments to be made against Crookes.

Why would a LAs be so wary of "authorisations" or "mandates"? Well, here is an example. Earlier this year, a "reputable" L/L compiled and submitted over 100 "appeals" on behalf of tenants. More than 60% were not signed by the claimants, but notices of authority for the L/L to act on behalf of the tenants were provided. It quickly became apparent that most of the tenants concerned didn't even know an appeal had been made. In plain English, it was an abuse of the process by the L/L. Unsurprisingly, the LA applied DAR 20 and submitted the 60% to the Tribunal Service as not being duly made. TTS agreed - all were struck out. Just to be clear, the L/L was not a person affected in these cases.

Irrespective of the above, I can't see anything to stop your client simply signing the existing letter of appeal (especially as the original letter mentioned it should be an appeal if a recon was unsuccessful). The LA cannot "reject" it in any case - it's a matter for TTS.

Mon 18-Aug-08 12:32 PM by Kevin D

Apologies for my ignorance, but what is a GL24?

Thanks for your reply.

Would the signature part of the GL24- duly signed by the client- be sufficient to include along with the appeal letter or would the actual letter have to be signed.

The reason I’m asking is that it’s often difficult for me to get hold of a client and I could get them to sign the GL24 along with the mandate on the first interview.

Thanks Again

........Psst .......they don't use GL24's in HB - only those strange people in DWP insist on using them, and even then they're not mandatory ....confusing isn't it .....

LOL

So a signed letter it is then!

Heading out to track my client dowm now. Thanks guys.

A recent client of ours wrote her own (very good) appeal letter which she obviously signed.

She too has now had a letter giving her 1 month to appeal as they've treated that letter as a request for reconsideration - this has not happened with our LA before and i'm wondering if it's something that they've just been issued guidance on.

Our client was very clear in her letter stating she wished to appeal and giving reasons.

I have been out of HB a while now, but have plenty of experience of appeals officers in LA's who really don't understand the regs that are the D&A regs...

HB used to have a three stage internal review procedure (it was possible to have two stages, but most LA's had three!)... These were review, further review, and then hearing by a panel of (usually) 3 elected members. In light of Art 6 HRA considerations, a LA reviewing its own decision was not really 'fair' and there was nothing reasonable in the timescales for hearing (years was not unheard of). The only right of appeal from there was by JR. And when the decision was unlawful (which was not unheard of), it was only a v. brave HB Manager that would JR their own members!

Appeals Officers in LA's tend to be more experienced assessment staff, and so are familiar with the above procedure, and a mixture of bad habit, (thats the way we’ve always done it), ignorance of the HRA and common law (and appeal is an appeal, not a request for review), and cost considerations by senior managers who are might be managers, but have no understanding of general law let alone the depth and complexity of the HB regs, and so reply with “you can’t send that to TTS; do you know how much it would cost to employ enough staff to send all appeals like this to TTS?" (I used to send anyway, and then risk getting sacked – ho hum!). So many LA's ask claimants to appeal again, for one (or usually more) of these reasons.

The last person I rep’ed for was just over a year ago. I had a great argument with a northern city council (lets call it, oh Leeds - just for the sake of it). The claimant had completed an internal council 'appeals form' and said they wanted to appeal. I spent some two hours with the HB staff in their offices, as they had re-classified it and called it a request for review, (even though the form said at the top “appeals form”), they said they had written the claimant and as they got no response they then 'lapsed' the review (appeal) request.

It was only when I asked for the full address of the local TTS office, and stated to the appeals manager that I was going to lodge directly with TTS (the appeal was with the council for about 6 months) and ask TTS to list it, was it agreed that the appeal really was an appeal. But all the people I spoke to in person or on phone in those two hours, really believed they could re-classify an appeal as a request for review, and operate a compulsory review stage, before it went to TTS and these stages would require separate letters/forms.

As a (now former) HB appeals manager I had this same conversation with many HB assessment managers (and overall HB managers) and indeed contractor services that assess on behalf of LA’s that operated multiple review stages with a compulsory requirement for a separate letters, (even if like yours the first letter was clear in it being an appeal), and could not convince some of them… It was like swimming in rubbish… Just made me sick!

I think its the fault of the regs, they are so loosely worded in relation to what a review and appeal can be, that they allow an officer to think they have considerable discretion, when in fact, when viewed from an Article 6 perspective, they have v. little discretion at all.

I have some sympathy with HB appeals officers’ who try though. HB can be very complicated when dealing with notional income/capital and complex issues of land law, self-employed accounts, contrivance and non-commercial arguments, (and trust law!) which is above any beyond many in LA legal departments. HB appeals officers usually have no formal legal qualifications, and don't receive legal training either and so are left to fend for themselves. When speaking to an LA’s legal dept you very rarely get a coherent answer about many of these issues, and just get general advice back to specific questions! I remember many years ago when I was first confronted with trust law... It still chills me to the bone! However, the number of appeals officers who do actively research the law, are few and far between, though they do exist as they also post to this forum too!

Hope this gives you an insight into HB appeals!