I have a HB/CTB appeal and an IS appeal in respect of the same person. Both concern an alleged overpayment arising from the question of whether he was living in the same household as his wife. I have no problem with the substantive issues, but the LQPM has directed that the appeals be heard together.

I do not feel happy about this. Granted, if the IS appeal is successful, the HB/CTB decision should be revised entirely in my clients favour, but if it is not, then the Local Authority will effectively not have to prove their case. Further, the chairman will already have made a decision on the Living Together issue when it comes to deciding the HB/CTB issue so there seems to be a question of whether the HB appeal would be in accordance with Art 6 ECHR.

I can not find in the Social Security Act or the D and A regs anything that gives a LQPM the power to join another party as a party to the appeal proceedings.

Does anyone know where this power (if it exists) comes from?

Hi Ian, how are you? Can you clarify something please, when you say the appeals are to be heard together, are the appeals being held concurrently, or consecutively?

Hi Scott. I'm cold mostly at the moment because of the unique way in which the Local Authority heating works. How are you?

The notification letters I have received list the appeals at the same time on the same day. The Interlocutory referal notice merely states that the income support appeal is to be linked to the HB appeal. It is not entirely clear to me what they mean.

Either way, I want the IS one heard first and then the HB one on a different day, otherwise the DWP will be doing the LA's job for them and the chairman's mind will be made up by the time it comes to the HB appeal.

Ian, I'm warm due to the unique way in which I manage to sit next to the radiator and the boiler that controls it!

I suppose the power to do this could arguably be contained in Reg 38 of Decisions and Appeals Regs. It could be said that this is a generous interpretation of the powers therein, but they do seem to be fairly unfettered.

Have you written querying the power to do this? It may be a decent starting point. a simple defence of their actions may be that it's in the public interest to do what they are doing in terms of cost etc, and that there is nothing inherently unfair about what they are doing as the outcome of the IS appeal will be available to the next appeal anyway.

I'll have a bit of a think!

Scott

Thanks Scott.

I have more or less come to the same conclusion. I don't think that reg 38 actually gives them that much power because it allows the LQPM to give directions to parties to the proceedings but each is not a party to the proceedings of the other. Similarly, reg 43 only allows the tribunal chair (not a LQPM) to summon witnesses etc.

In the absence of anything more concrete I have written questioning their power and indicating the ways in which I feel it prejudices the rights of my client and creates practical difficulties for the PO's (if any).

I think this is an administrative decision to speed their clearance rates up a bit but it is of questionable lawfullness.