hi

I have representing a cl that has come to us after a decision has been given after tribunal hearing. However, cl did not attend appeal because cl was ill. However, cousin was acting as representative, and went along to tribunal. Tribunal wanted to adjourn however rep was adamant for tribunal to crry on without appellant there!!! In this case cl was already recieving award of HRM but was previously in receipt of HRC, so issue was mainly care really. However, rep obviously did not realise that if he continued without appellant HRM could be taken away with his absence. Anyway, the award was not taken away however, cl was not awarded any care award. Tribunal decided on basis of papers. Do you think i hv a good chance of getting decision set aside even though rep was adamant to carry on?

Its not fair on cl because rep obviously did not know what wa best wy to go.

Any advice or comms decision guys? has anyone come across this?

Did the Rep have a signed Authority to specifically continue at an Appeal in the absence of the client? The fact that you say he didn't know which way to go would seem to indicate that he did'nt.
I ask because although we hold an Authority to act as Rep, if we think there is a good chance that the customer may not turn up then we obtain a second one authorising us to continue in the event of their absence, or sudden departure half way through the hearing - it's not unknown. We started doing this (particularly where there were mental health issues) because in this area chairmen have been jnown to specifically ask to see such authorities.

If the rep in your case did not have permission to continue, then you might have grounds for a set aside.

no actually cl did not give a written form of authority but chairman did not actually ask for that. However, at the CAB we don't provide representation without cl being there at all.

We're a CAB but we do provide rep if the client is not present. As has been said above it's not unknown for a client to just feel unable to attend or to walk out half way through, finding the whole process too much.

However we've never been asked to provide a different authority to the one already given.

The question for the tribunal in the absence of the claimant is that how can it come to a decision which is within the terms of the law and the rules of natural justice. I think Commissioners Jacob's decision in CIB/2058/2004 can shed some light on this, eventhough the basis of the decision is about the consideration that might be given for an adjounment so that a rep can attend. In your case when the rep has been familiar with the claimant's case and possibly able to have elicited evidence from the claimant prior to attending the tribunal, even though not that much familiar with the law, it would be difficult to see how the decision can be set aside if there has been no error of law. If there has then, use sec 13 of the SSAct 1998 for setting aside.