They do attempt to pervert the course of natural justice from time to time, and a good example of this is that you must be an employee for two years before you can take any complaint forward to tribunal.

Last month i took a complaint to tribunal after being an employee for 11 weeks, and won whilst this supposedly watertight two year rule was in force.

Change the rules as much as you want Mr.Cameron, i guarantee you that i can, and will, find ways around your rules faster than you can write the legislation.

Thanks Stu,

We are still inside the one month rule at the moment so the timeframe isn't an issue as yet. This isn't my property by the way, i am supporting someone else here.

The tenancy agreement mentions absolutely everything aside from how many bedrooms are in the property, therefore strangely this person signed the tenancy agreement in 2011 without having a written document of how many bedrooms are there. The HA says two verbally (and that was only last week)

This is where it starts to get a bit Zen...

I dispute 2 bedrooms as i have no written proof there are 2 bedrooms, and as i have no definition from government on what a bedroom is i cannot make a decision as to how many bedrooms there are. Therefore i need the HB people to send someone out to inspect it and tell me how many bedrooms there are.

If they say its two, then i want their decision, and the reasoning behind it in writing.

What i want is a letter from them saying "the local authority have determined that there is two bedrooms in the property because ...."

Then, and only then will i have a written description of what the local authority describes as a bedroom, and i can then use this letter to help others, as the local authority will have committed themselves to what a bedroom is, and must then be consistent with others in the same predicament.

The easiest route by far would be for the tenant, who has shared custody of a downs syndrome child of under 3 years, to agree with his ex-partner that child benefit is signed over to him rather than her (who lives in a 1 bedroom flat as a single parent)....Case closed.

The relationship between the two ex partners is very strong, they put the child first, and help each other out with a lot of things. They are stronger as a separated couple than they ever were together.

Thanks for the letter template Stu, i will use this tomorrow and see where we go from there.

To be honest i was no fan of Blair either, but the point is that the heads of each party come and go, they are transient. The trade union movement cannot be voted in or voted out, we are always there, and always evolving, adapting, and learning...

I have never had time for union reps who's depth of knowledge consisted of shouting "everybody out" at a moment's notice. These people were neanderthals, and quite rightly died out as they couldn't adapt to their changing environment. I have never agreed with why people have the opinion that trade union teams on the ground are left wing. Why do they need to be any wing ?

At the end of the day trade union teams in workplaces are there to stop workers from getting screwed. Why do they need to be politically aligned at all ?

If i help my fellow man in the workplace, or am appalled by bullying, persecution, and injustice, and stand forward to say 'NO', does that make me a communist ? If the right wing politicians like thatcher see helping people who are being abused as 'dangerous subversive ideology' then i would be more worried about the illogical, and detached thinking of right wing politicians, and people of her ilk.

What really brought things into perspective was when i was speaking to an ex Iraqi interpreter recently who now lives in the UK after working alongside British forces through both gulf wars.

He said "what Iraq needs is a good Saddam", ok so Saddam was a ******, but aside from the political fanaticism the electricity worked, the plumbing was good, most people were in work, and you, and your neighbours knew who the lunatic was.

Now Iraq has been 'liberated' the electricity works for 3 hours a day, the plumbing is screwed, hardly anyone works, and you don't know who your enemy is as there are multiple factions, and religious militias who want to kill you for no reason in particular.

Maybe what the UK needs is a good Thatcher, or for that matter a good Blair.

Like i said, think differently.

I was speaking to the HB department in my local authority last week, and they said that they haven't been given the funding to employ people to go and inspect properties.

They also said that if all cases were appealed and insisted that rent officers go to each property then the local authority would be tied in red tape for years to come.

interestingly they also said that if all residents who were eligible for discretionary housing benefit applied for it then the budget would run out in 3 months from April 1st 2013.

Cameron's days are numbered, he will not have another term, then its back to the political wilderness for him and Clegg.

As far as i can make out, it doesn't matter about circumstances of the resident, all arguments boil down to a definition of what a bedroom is....If you have 99 bedrooms then the rents officer will still have to legally define what a bedroom is in order to legally determine whether it will be taxed.

Your average trade unionist comes with a suit, laptop and briefcase these days...the days of table thumping are over.

Having said that i don't see a 'watering down' of trade union power, i would rather see it as trade unionists being adaptable and becoming clever in the way they do business. Trade unions are far from dead in the water..., i myself won a case a couple of weeks ago in ET after being refused trade union representation. I also won a case in 2005 based on SRSC regs (trade union safety reps regs), and have won many others on behalf of members.

SRSC case wins have a long history of victories, catten v dept of social security, laurie holden v connex SE, Rama v SW trains, paul debenham v KLM engineering, Mcarthey v london underground, P Davies V Neath and port talbot county borough council, Duthie V Bath and north eastern borough council, yadda, yadda, even european cases such as arbieterwolfhart de stadt berlin v botel, kuratorium fur dyalis und neirentrasplantation v Lewark.... (my German isn't the best, but i digress);

All of these cases were after Thatcher...

In 2008 i negotiatied the biggest financial mass redundancy deal in Asda's 74 year history in the UK.

Again, after Thatcher.

Trade unions aren't dead, they are slicker, more knowledgeable, more empowered, better trained, and better placed to hit them where it hurts than the Arthur Scargills of this world.

Thatch thought she won, whereas in reality she gave us the opportunity to eradicate those who couldn't evolve, and replace them with onsite reps who are only slightly removed from the Johnny Cochran's of the workplace

Even the regs haven't been watered down...,look at the SRSC brown book regs, never amended, or repealed, or tampered with from 1977, and these are hard core trade union regs which are used all of the time to batter incompetent management into submission.

ET regs on dismissal of safety reps are well documented also..., some of the cases i cited above have ended up with huge payouts on safety grounds..., go take a look at the laurie holden case to underline the point.

Thatcher was just another low level insect bite who tried, and failed to mess with union policy. She has gone, we are still here and still fighting for, and winning cases in trade union workplace rights.

In the Thatcher era i was the 1 in 10, i was a number on a list, although thanks to her attempted railroading of the working population i am now as a result very much a left wing leader of industry, with my tendrills deeply embedded in, and wrapped around regional and national government.

She has very much created what she hated the most.....

Hi Stu,

I have a case like this at the moment, and we have disagreed in writing with the social housing landlords assessment of the size of the property. They say its 2 bedrooms, we say its 1 bedroom.

The housing benefit officer must then send out a rents officer to assess the property, before the housing benefit officer can determine whether to apply the bedroom tax at 14% or 25% etc....

Even if the rents officer tells the housing officer its 2 bedrooms, the housing officer is still tied by legal proof that this is the case. To legally prove this he/she must have a definition of what is or what is not a bedroom. (which the govt has not defined, and will not define)

Without a legal definition i could say that the room in your house with a toilet in it is also a bedroom...

The HB officer then must write to you to inform you of the reasoning he/she has come to as to why he/she thinks the room is/isn't a bedroom.

Without a definition then he/she cannot do this, and until the 'room' is defined, a levy can/can not be placed upon it.

Even if a council comes up with their own definition , then it is not legally binding unless the housing benefit legislation is amended.

They say its a bedroom, i say its a hat stand, or a wardrobe, or a rabbit hutch....i defy anyone to legally prove otherwise. On balance of probability, or singular opinions prove nothing.

The only legislation close to a definition are the regulations concerning houses of multiple occupation, although this has nothing to do with housing benefit, and only defines what IS NOT a bedroom, ie no window (isn't a bedroom), and 6.5 square metres or 70.1 square feet is the minimum size allowable. (nothing to do with the bedroom tax)

As well as this there is also the The 1985 Housing Act section 326 states explicitly a room of less than 50 square feet cannot be a bedroom, but again this has nothing to do with the 'spare room subsidy'

Hi all...

If there is no legal definition of what a bedroom is, and it is down to the housing benefit officer to decide if a room is a bedroom (not the landlord/housing association),

Then how can he/she make a legal decision on if your room is a bedroom or not ?

If he/she says it is a bedroom, then i say it is not. I can't legally prove my case, but neither can they.

If i say it isn't a bedroom as there is no legal definition, and use this as a ground for an appeal, then surely the onus is on the housing benefit officer to legally prove me wrong.

Without a legal definition there isn't any way to argue against my assessement that it isn't a bedroom.

Case thrown out for lack of legal definition, therefore lack of evidence.

Thoughts anyone ?

I think it may cause waves just asking who the data controller is within the company, as you can bet your boots that they are all scrambling in HR to decide who is the designated data controller as we speak.

See how you go on with the grievance procedure, and just the fact that you are going through that procedure means that minutes are taken of those meetings...

They will automatically be aware that if push comes to shove that should this grievance not be settled, then those minutes of every meeting will form the court bundle in any prospective tribunal later on. Chances are that a big company will not want the possible adverse publicity should it get that far

Be reasonable with them and play the diplomat through those meetings, but make it plain that you are offended, and require procedural change at the very least. The fact that this issue has been discussed further with another manager who was unaware of your medical data now that you have already raised it at verbal stage is in itself another breach of your privacy.

Any discussion of a grievance should be in a grievance meeting, with fact finding out of that sphere limiting itself to possible breach of data protection principles, not discussions about your medical data.

Thanks Billybob,

With the political story of the moment, coupled with my victory on section 10 (essentially a victory of trade union policy), i thought it apt to change my avatar to mark the occasion....

I very seldom get the chance to hoist the red flag these days....

I had this very same problem last week

The 365 day ESA limit is because you formerly had a job, and accrued enough NI contributions to get 365 days on contribution based ESA.

Fill out an ESA3 form, sign it, and send it to DWP. It will probably take up to 14 days to sort out, and you will probably need a couple of crisis loans in those two weeks to get you through the two weeks (as they will suspend the ESA claim in the intervening time. (They shouldn't refuse you if you explain the circumstances as it is their red tape that is the problem)

After 14 days they will place you on income based ESA, and everything will be back to normal.

Contact your local council for the crisis loans (not DWP) as the social fund has now moved into the care of your local authority. Call them by phone and ask them what the new process of crisis loan is. My own council now has an online application process that will give you an instant call back and ok the crisis loan there and then, but don't expect miracles, they will probably only give you around £50 a week to survive on (Thanks to Duncan Smith), although its only for two weeks, although in my own council crisis loans are now non-repayable.

When your ESA is back to normal, they should pay you the amount they owe you for the two weeks they have messed you around.

When i spoke to DWP they didn't even know what an ESA3 was....I had to explain it to them !

“He wasn’t even meant to be living there — because he couldn’t afford to pay any rent.”

So this means he was in breach of housing benefit rules, and i hope his landlord will now put forward a claim for unpaid rent. His partner should have received a section 21 at the very least for being in breach of tenancy agreement

“He was allowed to stay after agreeing to do jobs, from wiring plugs to changing light bulbs, and general maintenance.”

Without a 16th (at the time), or 17th edition wiring regulations qualification, no part P, or 2391 inspection and testing ? Anyone else would wind up in court. Also working unauthorised without informing DWP, that would get you sanctioned...

“I never claimed benefits”

And then your government bitches about all the unclaimed benefits at the end of the financial year....

Its easy to live without benefits when you are involved in fraud....So the challenge remains, try to live on £53 a week without committing HB fraud, breaking H&S law, and violating tenancy agreements, and then i will admire your honesty.

Cry me a river Mr.Smith, this report in the Daily Mail is an effort to wriggle and squirm...Take the change.org challenge and do it, then we can talk.

Hi Prouty99

 

Interesting reading that and as I was doing so all that went through my head was English aint there first language the HA have told them to do XZY but gave them advice and documents in English but pursue them through the courts.

 

Did they ever get an apology?

 

Are you thinking of a Formal Complaint to Chief Executive on this or have you probably done this?

I was just glad that the section 21 was withdrawn, and overlooked the possibility of a formal complaint because this judgement, along with the re-designation, set the scene for the pre-planned end game.

Unknown to the HA, whilst i was researching the case prior to the judgement, i found an interesting item on the HA website which was an advert for an empty flat in the same block which was directly underneath the tenant's flat...

This flat was the same layout, same bedrooms, and same floor space, but more importantly was up for rent at £87.63 a week. The critical thing was that this flat was advertised as a 2 bedroom flat.

My person's rent is also £87.63 a week (as we already know his flat was re-designated as a 1 bedroom)

Today i have spoken to the HA and questioned why his 1 bedroom flat is the same rent as their advertised 2 bedroom flat ?

The HA has now reduced his rent by £10 a week

Checkmate;

Bedroom tax - Removed

Section 21 - Withdrawn

Rent - Lowered

Job done. I know this seems like taking a mile when offered an inch, but extreme behaviour needs to be met by an extreme response.

No Problem Stu

If you need me to PM you with the full case notes than let me know, i will be only too glad to help. i thought it wouldn't be wise to post the entire case on the forum as the 42 days for appeal from the respondent hasn't yet expired...

I'm hoping they do appeal, as i am sure that the judgement will be upheld, and compensation uplifted by at least 25%

By the way, i think that Cag should open a new forum on the bedroom tax, as i am at war at the moment working on multiple cases of this, and have already had some successes that i think would help others. Can you sort that ?

Regards

Prouty

Just in case anyone is interested, and just in case it helps anyone else, last week i got a Section 21 repossession withdrawn on a case i was working on, and to make it more difficult, the party i was supporting was accused of continuous alleged antisocial behaviour.

The person (of African origin) was being persecuted, and was on the receiving end of racist accusations from his white neighbours as they did not want 'any of his kind' in the block....(Welcome to 2013 !)

All of his neighbours filled out bogus anti social behaviour diaries accusing him of having his tv on loud, having parties, yadda yadda....in order to hound him out of the block.

The housing association gave him an ASB diary also to log any hassle from his neighbours, although English isn't his first language.

The weight of many ASB diaries, versus his empty diary left the housing association no option but to issue him with a section 21 eviction notice....

I represented in court, and argued that since his first language wasn't English, he couldn't understand the Section 21, or the ASB diary, or more importantly he couldn't read his original tenancy agreement signed over a year ago...,this called into question the validity of the whole tenancy, and the housing association procedure of not ensuring that the tenant understood what he was signing in the first place !

Case was adjourned, and within 24 hours of adjournment the housing association sent him a letter withdrawing the Section 21 on the grounds that the housing association had failed to follow its own anti social behaviour policy !

They then proceeded to give him a new 12 month assure tenancy agreement written exclusively in Lingala (his native language)

I guess this argument would also work for poor reading ability, learning difficulties, dyslexia ,etc

Earlier this afternoon i also got him out of paying bedroom tax by arguing that his 'box room' hadn't got a window, and as such it was not only a fire hazard (no egress), but also in breach of landlord minimum requirements for a habitable bedroom for rental purposes. The HA agreed, and re-designated the 2 bed into a 1 bed !

The local authority had no choice but to accept it as it formed part of his re-designated tenancy agreement.

I hope this stuff helps others out there

Regards

Prouty99

Hi all,

I finally got a write up of this case, and just in case caggers are interested in the full judgement, the case number is;

24133401/2012 and the case took place on 8th March 2013 at Manchester employment tribunal, final judgement being posted on 26th March 2013.

Upshot of it all is that even if you are a few weeks into a probationary period of employment, then you are STILL entitled to trade union representation at dismissal hearings, as section 10 of employment relations act is a statutory right.

Furthermore, this case proves that even with that small amount of service (a few weeks), a breach of this statutory right still gives you the right to take your case to employment tribunal....and maybe win (exactly like i did)

For any budding respondent barristers out there, if you are faced with arguing against this right in court, then do not attempt to use the example of Heathmill multimedia ASP ltd v Jones (2003) IRLR 856 EAT....., especially Paragraph 8 of that judgement.

Respondent council tried that one, and was shot down badly....

"The tribunal did not find this argument to be at all attractive" (Quote)

"Accordingly, the claim is well founded" (Quote)

Thanks for the assistance, and opinions from all the caggers who voiced an opinion of the best strategy during the course of this case, in the end we won.

Kindest regards,

Prouty99

Thanks for the reply Squaddie

The trade union isn't involved in this issue, although i have a long history with a national trade union i have since moved into a new sector but keep close trade union ties, (as you will have gathered from the cag employment sub forum)

As you observed, this is all about a communication issue. Unless an issue is highlighted then the people who have the power to change policy are unaware of it.

Hence the reason i brought up the subject to start with. I'm sure the union would help on this issue, (as they do have a mighty powerful publicity apparatus), although i am confident i can resolve the issue at source without their intervention at the moment.

To be honest Stu, i haven't looked at the contractual angle as yet (I guess that is what you are driving at), i was looking more at the angle of having a hand in formulating the community covenant to cover these guys at the minute, it hasn't come to the point of playing legal hardball, and i doubt it will or even if i, or the interpreters want it to. I think we can resolve the situation through negotiation, as the higher management of the Legion are with me on this point, So i will keep cag informed as the negotiations proceed.

At the minute it seems that the covenant is non uniform, as different authorities are rolling it out as they see fit, and at the moment the authority i am working with are open to the idea of both Iraqi, and Afghan interpreters being included under the covenant (vindication of the British Legion opinion on the matter)

I at first had similar reservations about the role of the interpreters as Mr ScarletPimpernel, although once i had gone through the array of military recommendations/documentation from both US and UK military commanders, and the many hundreds of messages, and letters of support from multiple regimental committees (including cash donations), i started to see the interpreters in a different light. All the regimental committees i have spoken to so far are of the opinion that these guys are brothers in arms.

First off the block were the Highland Regiment who were the first in the UK to send letters of support, and the regimental committee sent donations from the regiment to support the 'Terps' in my area. I trust their judgement, and applaud them for their stance.

On a different note, and i apologize to the cag moderators in advance...,

As for the previous question regarding the role of trade unions in general, i can only speak for my own history within the trade union movement, and have found that within the trade union movement everyone is treated as an equal, and afforded the same support. In fact if i negotiate a redundancy deal in a company with a thousand employees, but only 500 trade union members, the whole thousand get the same redundancy payment (Including non members).

The right to representation as an example was fought for by trade unions, but benefit members and non members alike.

Within the trade union membership i don't recall any Gurkha type struggles over equal treatment either, everyone has the same rights.

It would seem that my grip on history has been underestimated.

I doubt that the many civilians employed by the MOD, directly, and indirectly in Northern Ireland turn up in any significant quantities in small pieces scattered around the emerald isle on a daily basis due to their work.

The trade union isn't involved by the way

It would seem that way

Damn tax should never have been introduced in the first place. If on the other hand forces personnel can benefit from the exemption then lets go with it.

Oh, and Cameron will not admit it is a 'bedroom tax'...., apparently he says its a "subsidy"...

Apologies, i musn't have been paying attention at the hearing, (which i usually wouldn't once i know that the case has won)

Apparently, after checking with my brief, i will be getting written reasons...

I will be watching the tribunal website over the coming weeks, as 7 days have now elapsed since judgement, so i guess it won't take much longer.

The case i eluded to earlier was the only survivor of a group of 19 "terps" connected to the same regiment. This individual was in charge of the 18 who died on the same day who didn't take advice about varying routine travelling arrangements. and as a result were in a IED attack. The regiment the individual was connected to lost less men in the entire conflict, and the surviving "terp" had longer service with the regiment than a good number of the service personnel did with the regiment.

They had service numbers, the individual didn't.

They get assistance, the individual doesn't.

The covenant is designed to allow military personnel to suffer no detriment, and to be afforded the right to priority consideration based on their service, and sacrifices to the UK...., the individual doesn't.

I get that personnel need assistance, and rightly so which i fully support, but for the sake of a number someone gets left in the cold ? Is this individual any less brave than the personnel the individual served alongside ?

Apologies to be going off on one, i don't mean to be, and i don't mean any disrespect its just that i am a 20 year veteran of trade unionist policy, and natural justice is something that is hard wired into my personality

Apologies for posting again,but there is another point that i feel is important in relation to section 10 and tribunal claims.

I thought earlier, (and should have thought of this at the very beginning of the proceedings)...Do i want my name listed at the head of the tribunal published judgement ?

Do i want my name connected to a case involving dismissal ? For anyone involved in similar cases its something to consider before taking proceedings forward. If you don't want your name at the head of the document, then make the fact known to the tribunal well before the case gets listed.

As an example of this see the case " R v Goveners of X school " Which centred around s 10 ERA 99, although "R" requested "legal representation" at the dismissal hearing.

Because "R" stood a good chance of never working in the school system ever again had "R" lost the case (due to the nature of the allegation), "R" won the ET case as "R" had been denied "legal representation" under s 10 ERA 99 with european court of human rights arguments in connection.

The outfall is that "R" won the ET, but kept his/her anonymity.

The case went to appeal, and the school's case was dismissed, and the case again won by "R"

The case was then referred to the supreme court, and "R" lost, with the fact that if solicitors become involved in disciplinary procedures on representation then the public sector would go into meltdown..., it's an interesting concept, and an interesting case, and although i'm sure it will rattle on, the point is that "R" has maintained his/her anonymity

To be honest, the defence to this case was (In my opinion) pretty weird, in that the organization would not admit that this was a dismissal hearing, their assumption was that it was a "termination during probationary period"

They thought that this phrase would get them out of jail, as if it wasn't a dismissal, then it wouldn't qualify under ACAS code, or ERA s 10.

No union in the country could be seen to be not supporting a case on breach of s 10 ERA 99, and the company categorically would not back down.

It's the perfect storm, immoveable object meets irresistible force. I'm glad that the union came out on top, as if the case would have been lost then the floodgates may have opened. I am sure that if no appeal comes then the union will milk the result for everything it is worth in publicity, and rightly so.

A very small financial remedy, but a hugely important point.

If the place was safe to return to, free from assassination squads, then i am sure the interpreters would be at the airport awaiting the first plane, and i would be happy to organise that

But it just isn't the case.

I have lost count of the times i have heard the same comment from these people "What Iraq needs is a good Saddam"

it was a horrible regime, but it was stable, the electricity worked, and you knew who your enemy was (Saddam). Since Saddam went there are multiple factions, militias from Iran, warring tribal chiefs, you cannot trust your neighbour, and you get 3 hours electricity a day (sometimes).

Rather than go off topic here with political stuff, the point is that the round journey i eluded to was funded by the British Legion, but they are the only organisation i have spoken to who will make a discretionary decision. Every other armed forces related welfare organization i have spoken to in the UK have stuck to the party line of "no service number, no assistance".

This is why i have chosen to tackle the problem at source, through being heavily involved in the implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant, and have got Iraqi interpreters on to the steering groups within local government. I would rather have Interpreters involved in the implementation of the covenant than have them fall through the cracks of someone else's decision making process.

I'm not too sure about being paid rather well, around the equivalent of 50p a day at the start, and for a five year veteran that rises to around £400 a month or thereabouts. (That's if you live that long, which most didn't)

Around 100 a year came to the UK with special Visa's between 2007 and 2010 as part of the gateway program. Support from the UK program lasted 12 months, then they were left to fend for themselves on benefits.

As i said earlier, i need to be careful of the wording here, but as an example i am aware of a case where one was given permission to return to Iraq for compassionate reasons, and returned 2 weeks later in 2013 having spent the time in hiding, travelling around the south in the boot of a car, as relatives with no connection to the UK forces were still being killed by the militia due to the individual's past service with UK forces from 2003 to 2007.

The south of Iraq is neither safe, nor stable, with even elements of Iranian militia flooding the region, as Iranian religious leaders are forming pacts with southern Iraqi goveners in the area. Large billboards with Iranian religious figures shaking hands with Iraqi local leaders are present around Basra, and the south as we speak, it is truly the wild west, and because we are told by the MOD that it may be stable doesn't make it so.

The reason for the program is that if the interpreters return they we be killed, simple as. The militias see them as collaborators, and traitors. Gateway is akin to a military based witness protection program.

For further info on these brave, but forgotten men & women i have included some links;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15462194

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8029631.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/11/veterans-day-time-remember-iraqi-interpreters

These people believed they were doing what was morally right in helping UK forces, and risked their lives to assist...,It sure as hell wasn't for the money. Not many would go on patrol kicking in doors with UK forces in southern Basra without a firearm for 50p a day having given up their former careers in Iraq to do just that. Now as a result of that assistance they can never go home, and watch as their friends and close relatives in Iraq are picked off by militia just for having an association with the individual who is now sat in a damp flat in Glasgow on jobseekers allowance.

Puts it into perspective doesn't it?