I have inherited a client (due to closure of a local advice centre) who had their (guaranteed) pension credit award suspended in Dec 2007. She appealed this decision which was struck out (correctly, I think) on ground that suspension is non-appealable. The issue was LTAMAW following what appears to be a malicious letter sent by a relative. A fraud investigation was held by a fraud officer attached to local JC+. The investigator concluded on balance of probabilities that client was LTAMAW.

However the transcript only seems to establish that several visits to stay (for a few weeks) between the two parties occurred over several months. Have seen no evidence that "households" have in any way been joined and to me there is little case to answer.

Unfortunately no entitlement decision has been made despite numerous requests to pension service. In February, the DWP debt recovery unit tried to recover an overpayment (for period prior to 2007). This was appealed and this unit have admitted that no overpayment decision was issued. Their response is to declare the overpayment non-recoverable and then say it is nothing to do with them any more.

I have challenged this and said that I still wish to dispute the stoppage of benefit in 2007.

Have now received from 1st tier judge a direction to comment on pension service response that appeal was struck out in 2007.

Not sure what to do. There has not been an entitlement decision following the suspension so does the tribunal have any power to hear this case?

Is there any way I can force the Pension Service to make a decision?

If they say there's a non-recoverable overpayment, could you lodge a late appeal against the entitlement decision that gave rise to the o/p decision, on the grounds that there must have been one?

Sue

This is some case law Paul (Neville) flagged up in past postings

In Secretary of State for the Home Department and another ex parte Anufrijeva (2003) HL, Lord Steyn, at paragraph 26, stated:- “The arguments for the Home Secretary ignore fundamental principles of our law. Notice of a decision is required before it can have the character of a determination with legal effect because the individual concerned must be in a position to challenge the decision in the courts if he or she wishes to do so. This is not a technical rule. It is simply an application of the right of access to justice. That is a fundamental and constitutional principle of our legal system: Raymond v Honey <1983> 1AC 1, 10G per Lord Wilberforce; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Leech, <1994> QB 198, 209D; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Simms <2000> 2 AC 115”.

Tactics - engage local MP, Write to PS regional/District managers, as a way of bypassing local PS office impasse.