Normally when an LA writes to asks for additional evidence, the client has 28 days in which to supply said information: this would normally be reasonable period.

However, where the LA is made aware by the client (on more than one occasion) within that period that the evidence required will be delayed due to problems with a third party supplying it, but still suspends or terminated the claim on the grounds that the evidence was not supplied, then doesn't the continuing insistance on adhereing to the 28 day deadline become an unreasonable request?

I seem to recall seeing a CD to that effect somewhere, but can't recall the number - any suggestions?

First of all, the time limit is now one month or as long as is reasonable. What is more there is specific provision under D&A Reg 13(4) to satisfy the authority that either the required information does not exist or it is not possible to obtain it.

There is no right of appeal against suspension but there is against termination. If the LA insist on being unreasonable the usual remedy of a complaint to the Ombudsman would be in order, and there is always the possibility of JR

I think the CD you are thinking of might be the Tribunal of Commissioners decision CH/2155/2003, but that dealt with the right of appeal where the LA considered the claim to be defective, not with suspension and termination

Thanks - it was the bit under D&A 13(4) that I was thinking of .....