I suspect the CD in question is CSHB/0873/2005.
The crux is the application of HBR 7(6)(d)&(e). In my view, 0873 is only "adverse" if you conveniently ignore numerous other CDs. Further, there are very strong arguments to suggest that 0873 was wrongly decided.
The Cmmr managed to find that para d was retrospective in relation to the date when a person moved. In considering that para d was retrospective in 0873, the Cmmr actually relied on wording from para e. 0873 directly contradicts CSHB/0385/2005 where para d was analysed in detail (with legislation correctly quoted) and was found to be PROSPECTIVE only, not retrospective. 0385 is entirely consistent with at least half a dozen other CDs on related, relevant issues. Also worth noting that if para d is retrospective, then why does para e exist?
Very notably, 0385 was not (apparently) considered in 0873.
All the DWP need to do is challenge 0873, citing the existing authorities. There is no need for a law change. Unless, of course, the DWP think paras d & e can in fact be successfully challenged. In which case, they screwed up in the drafting of the regs. Either way, not impressive.
From an LA point of view, I'd have no concerns about defending an appeal where the appellant tried to rely on 0873. On the flip side, if I used 0873 for a clmt, I'd only expect to be successful if the LA and Tribunal simply didn't know of the other authorities. If the LA (or Tribunal) cited the other authorities, I'd expect to lose.
|