While waiting on the line for JC+ to answer the phone might as well play on the internet. Does anyone know if JC+ refusing to pay benefit following a successful appeal could count as contempt of court?

Possibly - Contempt of Court Act 1981 defines "court" as including "any tribunal or body exercising the judicial power of the State" which would seem to include SSATs, and there is caselaw holding mental health review tribunals and employment tribunals to be "courts" for this purpose. On the other hand the CCA81 is mainly concerned with criminal contempt, and ignoring a court order is civil contempt (I think).

Not sure what the remedy would be. The SSAT does not have the power to punish for contempt - only a "court of record" can do this. It would probably have to go to the High Court, and I think contempt proceedings can only be begun with the consent of the Attorney General. JRing their failure to implement the decision would probably be more appropriate.

You could simply sue for debt in the county court, just as the DWP can do the other way round with overpayments.

There are then several ways of enforcing the judgement, like sending in the bailiffs to distrain on goods. Does your client fancy a new laptop along with a projector for powerpoint presentations?

Maybe he could get you a few and let you have them for a knock down price

Andy, you don't specify the circumstances in this case, but is it possible that JC+ is considering an appeal to Commissioners? Social Security Act 1998, s.21(2)(c) and s.21(3); and Decision & Appeals Regs, Reg.16(3)(b)(i) and 16(4)provide for suspension of benefit when an appeal is pending.

I'd get the bailiffs to distrain their telephones. That would bugger up CMS in that office somewhat!

Do they actually use the telephones? My experience from calling caller centres includes things such as "no you can't have a number for the section dealing with it.... they don't have phones"

Perhaps someone has already distrained the phones...

Ruth, they're out of time for Comms appeal, made a point of not chasing them til they were in case it gave them ideas.

Have letter from client saying she's not entitled as not got right to reside, which is what we appealed against...about to chase them up.

Sounds like a case of "well we've had a look at the law and we've decided that we don't like the look of it, so we're going to take no notice of it..."

Now promise not to laugh but some years ago I was advised by a chairperson that although we were not in a high court situation,I was, nonetheless, still subject to the rules on contempt of court so I had better be careful what I was saying. I'm sure I didn't know what she was meant.

Were you wearing a particularly loud shirt that day?

Now why is it that we are not at all surprised Patrick....?

It must be your magnetic charm and way with words that does it ....

Use a Judical Review always proves fun.