hi salma
on the appeals issue -
by putting two dates on the GL24 your client has clearly indicated that she wishes to appeal against both decisions, and in fact the recovery decision is irrelevant if the disallowance on revision goes in her favour. regulation 33 (1) (c) of D&Aregs states that the appeal should contain particulars of the grounds on which it is made - possibly this is what they are seizing on.
when an appeal is received which does not contain sufficient grounds, the appeals section will normally write to the Apellant and ask for grounds, explaining that without them the appeal is not valid - i think this action might be an instruction in their appeals guidance manual - not entirely sure - if Judith's around she might know...?
they should not simply ignore it, without communicating with the Appellant, and when it is the overpayment issue which your client wants the tribunal to consider, it seem particularly unhelpful, depending of course, on what your client actually did put in her appeal.
it's possible the tribunal would take a different view than the appeals officer - in the interests of her receiving a fair hearing, but they may well prefer to have a submission from the DWP on the capital issues.
i don't think there is anything to stop you from putting in a late appeal with grounds, referring to the earlier appeal and lack of communication until whenever it was that the DWP were treating it as invalid - i would be surprised if it would be ruled out for lateness, and to request postponement of the hearing, as the two appeals need to be heard together, and it would be a nonsense to hear the recovery appeal before the entitlement appeal...
|