Quick question - Does a decision of a Magistrate's Court hold primacy over a decision of an appeal tribunal. i.e. An appeal tribunal decided that a couple are co-habiting for the whole of a 2 year period even though all the evidence pointed to an 11month seperation of the couple. About 6 months later, a Magistrate's Court heard the same matter and decided to accept the evidence given under oath as to an 11 month gap in co-habitation.

See attached which may help-

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/courtsys.htm

As a 'layperson', I would consider that an AT (one member of which is legally qualified) is the correct first 'legal' step for benefit related decisions.
As the above website explains, Magistrates Courts (MC) are normally comprised with 'lay' persons.
What both AT's, and MC's, decide are entireley different types of cases. Normally the only time DWP (or a Local Authority) is in a MC is when it's a fraud case.
I could only suggest that if you have evidence to support the claim, then you forward it to the AT Chairperson to consider having the AT decision set aside.

Paddy, could this be a "standard of proof" point? Tribunal accepts civil standard - balance of probabilities - is met, and so decides they were cohabiting; but magistrates decide that criminal standard - beyond reasonable doubt - is not met, and so prosecution have failed to prove that they were?

If so, both decisions semm to have equal validity, but for different purposes.

Thank you everyone; most interesting. I think I've covered all the bases with this one I've:

- Sought revision of tribunal decision
- Sent for Full Written reasons
- Made late application for leave to appeal to Commissioner
- Appealed to the L/A to reconsider their HB overpayment calculations etc, etc, etc.

Fingers crossed. Thank you.