I have been dealing with case that was referred on to us from another advice agency. This was a CSA appeal that was heard in Aug 05. The other rep requsted set aside if the decision that went against our client, the client had not attended due to ill health and i assume the rep did not attend either(?)
At the time ive taken it over the Commissioners state they never received the original application by the old rep for 'leave to appeal' , also they cannot accept late application as the old rep did not request a statement of reasons and TAS have detroyed the file.
There is recovery action ongoing through the magistrates.
As we still believe the original CSA decision was incorrect in law, we have sent a letter of complaint to CSA, querying the decision and why they didn't take the case to Commissioner.
My question is, Do CSA have the power to revise the Tribunals decision or to review the decision from the date following the decision of the Tribunal?

Why should the CSA have taken the case to Commissioners if it went the way they (or the other party) wanted it to?

It's too late for a late application for setaside/leave to appeal as this has to be made within 13 months absolute maximum of the decision being promulgated. I don't understand the ref to an advance request for setaside if the decision went against client - you can't just do that. If the client was unavoidably prevented from attending an oral hearing that in itself would ahve been automatic grounds for setaside after the hearing, but it sounds as if no such application was ever made.

A decision maker can supersede the decision of the Tribunal if it transpires that it was made in ignorance of a material fact, but not otherwise. A decision that is arguably wrong in law has to go through the appeals process.

If I was the other rep, and knew where this has got to, I might be hastily reading through my professional indemnity insurance booklet...

The parent with care appealed against CSA's decision not to take into account an sickness policy payment. CSA had received the decision twice and not changed it and the lady appealed. In the absence of our client or the old rep appearing at Tribunal the lady won the case. The set aside was refused, it appears because the rep could have attended and didn't.