Thanks Paul, this is very helpful and gives me a line to follow.
The facts of the case are interesting. When client's partner moved in his request for her time on IS to count towards his waiting period was rejected. He insisted and the DM eventually agreed to link his claim to his partner's former claim. As a result of that, his housing costs started in October.
That meant, that he couldn't take advantage of the january amendments and client appealed against that.
I initially advised that the decision was correct but then I began to wonder if it was correct to link the claims in the first place. Although uncertain I made the argument to the tribunal that in para 14(1)(d) the reference to 'claim' meant a 'claim for benefit', which doesn't incoroporate a revision or supersession. This was mostly on the basis that the provision is under 'linking rules' and linking rules link 'claims' and in this case it was not a 'claim' it was a supersession.
The tribunal disagreed becuase by restricting interpretation in the way I suggested means that some people will lose out from what is, after all, a positive concession designed to help people (lets face it, this doesn't happen that often) get help with housing costs sooner. Essentially, the judge says that the correct interpretation is the more generous one.
Based on what you've said, the tribunal might have been legally correct too. I hope so becuase this is one occassion i really, really don't want to be right. I would hate myself forever if we won at commissioners because one person's success would result in many people's hardship...
Thanks for the clue - I'll get on it.
|