I've got an unusual (in my experience) decision making scenario.

The claimant is investigated, realises nature of investigation at IUC and then receives a decision a month later.

The first decision notified is the overpayment issued by the black hole that is chorlton debt management 10 & 12 August 2002 (as the same letter is issued twice.)

We appeal the amount and request info on the date of the LTAHAW dec.

1st July 2003 the submission arrives with all the details we require.

LTAHAW decision is 30th July 2002.

Wait for it....

and was notified on the 10th September 2002.

Client has always stated that they never got a decision on LTAHAW other than that of the O/P decision.

Tribunal Chair insists we are on a loser as we didn't appeal the first decision i.e. the LTAHAW decision dated 30th July 2002 but notified on 10th September 2002.

Has any body had experience of this reverse decision making?

And any convincing argument that the first appeal on recovery covers the second decision on LTAHAW?

I have not come up against this scenario before, but have had appeals against the OP but not the LT decision where the LT was issued and received before the OP one.The Tribunal in Norwich will not look at the OP appeal without the LT one and I had a hearing adjourned recently so that the rep could ask for the late LT appeal- that had not been admitted by TAS- admitted so that the two could be heard together ( this application was to be supported by the Tribunal chair in his reasons).

I don't think that the chair can consider the LT decision at an OP hearing because there would be no papers or details of the investigation/decision for him to consider.He would have only one 'side' of the story which could be good for your client but could just as easily be a disaster. The OP decision is a consequence of the LT one i.e.because you've been found to be LT there is an overpayment, but it is not an LT decision per se.

It is quite common for claimants not to appeal the LT decision until they get the OP one some time later, because nothing happens initially- - other than their benefit stopping.When they get the OP decision asking for huge amounts of money they then appeal and find themselves in difficulties because of the lateness of one of the appeals.

Before you all jump down my throat about my 'nothing happening other than benefit stopping...'I am only referring there to cases where LT has been admitted.

You're spot on.

I don't think the chair will allow the o/p appeal to become the LTAHAW appeal.

However, the information I have indicates that the decision may not have been notified to the claimant and therefore the decision is invalid?

This could end three ways I'm thinking.

1. The decision is the same as the prosecution case and the appellant is deemed to have to pay back the equivalent of a new Fiat Punto. This is our argument.

2. The decision could go the way of the dwp and a BMW has to be paid back.

3. or..... the technical argument may win through and nothing is repaid despite an admittance of a significant period of L/T.

Still wondering if I may have missed something

It's probably too late for this to be useful, but I've seen a couple of similar cases where o/p decisions are issued and the claimant says they haven't had the LT decision. I've made a point of stating in the O/p appeal letter that the claimant hasn't had the LT decision, and made it clear that the main grounds for disputing the o/p are that the client hasn't been living together. If there is no discussion of the LT decision in the DWP sub, Chairs have been adjourning and directing the DWP to produce a sub on the LT point. I've had at least one which was allowed simply because no LT sub was forthcoming by the time the appeal was relisted.