JSA Sanction Appeal: Tribunal Decision Favourable, what next?

[sugacream]

Hello,

 

any advise on this matter would be greatly appreciated. So, I've recently had the tribunals service decide in favour regarding a 6 month sanction on JSA.

 

The decision notice states - the appeals are allowed and the decision made on the 18/10/12 regarding the sanction are set aside. There is also a third section that states the reasoning of the decision... I was not duly notified in accordance with requirements.

 

I just wanted to know if this meant I should receive full JSA payments whilst still signing? Will I get back all the allowance refused because of the sanction?

 

I intend to contact the benefit office but I would like a better understanding of what the decision notice means before doing so. I will attend CAB if advised.

 

Thanks for the help.

[postggj]

Bloody hell, six month sanction, what in gods name did you do to deserve that??

 

As i read it, all the payments refused during the sanction period will be refunded. That is less any hardship payments made to you, Your job seekers allowance will now be reactivated to receive the full allowance

 

Best ask the job centre advisor for confirmation and take that letter with you, no doubt people will comment on this as sanctions seem to be issued at the drop of a hat these days.

 

If you claimed hardship payments while on job seekers, may i ask how much the reduced rate was

[sugacream]

Thanks for the reply. I've been claiming hardship payments in the vulnerable category as a single parent so have a 20% reduction. I was awarded £113.60 but they also take £14.00 additionally out of this to recover debt I have on a budging loan. I've almost completely re-payed the loan but it's been a nightmare. I've been getting £99.50 fortnightly but this sounds like good news for once.

[postggj]

may i ask what the sanction was for, its ok if you do not want to say

 

they will be hang ,draw and quarter next, i know a guy who was sanctioned for being 10 minutes late for 4 weeks

 

seems very harsh

[sugacream]

Just wanted to update on this if anyone else is in a similar situation.

 

Since trying to recoup backpay from DWP I've been advised that they are appealing the decision to the high court. Something to do with court of appeal and Wilson and Reilly. They said they won't reconsider the decision they made to sanction me and I will remain sanctioned. This is of a course a devastating blow and I really don't know what to do next. What can I do? Can I appeal somewhere else?

 

I've been told by various DWP advisers they will not uphold the decision made by the tribunal service and that the tribunal service should not have made the decision it did. I'm confused and upset to be honest. The adviser told me it will take ages to sort out and if DWP wins or gets a favourable decision (I'm not law savy) I will get nothing and continue to be sanctioned. I've been reading a bit about it on the web and it seems the DWP are trying to change the law so they don't have to pay. It seems that is exactly what will happen too. This all seems unreal.

 

Can anyone shed some light on this?

 

I've got bedroom tax and a council tax bill to cover as additional bills with sanctioned benefits. I've never voted in my life but definitely would this year if I knew who was opposed to squashing the poor & vulnerable

[postggj]

My interpretation of this is that the original sanction has been set aside by the tribunals service, so the situation now goes back to before you were sanctioned, any forfeiture is to be repaid with immediate effect

 

By what statutory authority can they just say "sod off " to you and claim they are appealing to the high court

 

I am now going to look into this Wilson v Reilly

 

Even though the decision was made by a tribunal, any court will judge that as law.

 

I will get back to you later on this

 

This is just plain wrong

Edited April 14, 2013 by squaddie

[postggj]

To me they are trying to use the excuse that job seekers allowance regulations do not comply with the Parent Act, that being the Job-seekers Act 1995, so no detriment in law has occurred

 

yet they changed the job seekers regulations 2011 to refuse to pay back any monies lost due to sanctions given to claimants

 

This smacks of double standards, and makes a mockery of the judiciary system that we have in amending legislation when it suits them

 

I may be barking up the wrong tree, but that's how i see it

Edited April 14, 2013 by squaddie

[sugacream]

Ok, thanks for this information. Do you think I should enquire further with this or just let it go? If I have a case I will pursue it as it's truly unfair.

[postggj]

What is obscene in all of this is the cost implications to the UK tax payer in appealing the tribunals decision by the DWP. It would be cheaper and simpler just to pay you back what they lawfully owe you.

 

Please let this go to the court of appeal, it will not cost you anything, but as its the court of appeal, the judges may well set a Legal precedent which the DWP cannot go against, and will benefit future people put in your position now

 

Please let it run its course and with any luck, give the DWP a bloody nose

Edited April 14, 2013 by squaddie

[worried33]

I am no legal expert but I think legally they cannot ignore a tribunal decision unless of course they appeal that decision themselves.

 

Your tribunal decision is independent of that other court case. So you need to get hold of a decision maker instead of a advisor.

 

Also I suggest getting hold of welfare rights or CAB on this issue. Get some legal advise.

[speedfreek]

Yes you appealed to the 1st Tier Tribunal.

 

If either party does not agree then they can appeal to the Upper Tribunal on a point of LAW.

 

Taken from the site that can not be named

 

Following an appeal both parties have right of appeal to the Upper Tribunal. It's not often that the DWP appeals or considers appealing; I can't say whether it's happening more often.

 

If they do appeal you won't necessary have to attend another tribunal, only if the Upper Tribunal allows the appeal but remits it to a fresh tribunal, which we hope will not happen.

 

Like the appellant, in order to appeal they have to apply for a statement of reasons, which can take two to three months. A copy should be sent to both parties. Have you received your copy yet?

 

This fact sheet explains the process http://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/appealing-upper-tribunal-against-first-tier-tribunal-decision

 

You will need legal help if the DWP do take this further and legal aid is still provided for Upper Tier if you are eligible

 

Check here (I don't like .gov as it's not always right) https://www.gov.uk/legal-aid/overview

 

Who told you that they were going to appeal was it a script merchant on the general telephone line or somebody else?

 

I'd book an appointment at the CAB if you can and talk this over with them as hopefully they can make sense out of this.

 

Unfortunately except for moral support there's not much but advice on the process we can offer. As if the DWP do appeal you will need specific legal advice/help.

Edited June 30, 2013 by citizenB

[sugacream]

Thanks for the replies. I've got an appointment at my local CAB so hopefully I'll get this sorted out.

[45002]

Thanks for the replies. I've got an appointment at my local CAB so hopefully I'll get this sorted out.

 

sugacream

 

Could you tell us please

 

What exactly where you sanctioned for 6 months in the 1st place ?

 

Thank you....

Edited April 16, 2013 by 45002

[sugacream]

Work programme. I missed about 4 interviews. I did contact to say the times were unsuitable, generally outside school hours... but they kept re-arranging around the same time so I began to ignore them not realizing the true consequence. For every appointment I missed, I received a new sanction but because they were so close together, the 6 months sanction topped up straight away if that makes sense. I didn't realize it was for 6 months, I thought it was 2 weeks but they sanctioned me every time I missed an interview.

 

EOS said my benefits would be reinstated if I attend the appointments and I did. I then still had to appeal the sanction and the DWP refused my appeal after having to wait 3 months for them to do so. They said I did not have a good enough reason for missing the appointments, so I remained sanctioned whilst I attended the work programme. I got sick of it and stopped attending altogether. EOS still write me now to attend outside school hours, they don't listen.

 

I've been sanctioned for 8 months, I've appealed 3 times. DWP denied all 3, the last one I took to tribunal service and got the decisions set aside and this is where I am now with DWP disputing that high profile court case. They say they cannot reconsider the decision until that case has been resolved.

 

I've attached a copy of the reply letter they sent me.

Edited April 18, 2013 by sugacream

[45002]

Work programme. I missed about 4 interviews. I did contact to say the times were unsuitable, generally outside school hours... but they kept re-arranging around the same time so I began to ignore them not realizing the true consequence. For every appointment I missed I received a new sanction but because they were so close together, the 6 months sanction topped up straight away if that makes sense. I didn't realise it was for 6 months, I thought it was 2 weeks but they sanctioned me every time I missed an interview. EOS said my benefits would be reinstated if I attend the appointments and I did. I then still had to appeal the sanction and the DWP refused my appeal, they said I did not have a good enough reason for missing the appointments, so I remain sanctioned whilst I attended the work programme. I got sick of it and stop attending altogther. EOS still write me now to attend outside school hours, they just don't listen.

 

 

 

Does sound like you been treated badly,but in the end you never missed the appoints.

 

No sure if you can get your full benefits reinstated,see what other CAG user advise you.

 

Keep CAG posted,good luck ....

[sugacream]

I believe so. I just wish they weren't still refusing JSA,

[Mr.P]

The Reilly & Wilson case revolved around a specific point regarding the information they had (or rather, had not) been given.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but reading between the lines, you are a parent with young children at school. Your case appears to be a matter of the provider not taking in to account your carer duties as a parent and deliberately making appointments that they know will conflict with other duties. This would make any ruling on the Reilly & Wilson case immaterial as the circumstances are different.

 

I would also list your local MP as a point of contact in addition to any CAB help.

[speedfreek]

Right has your claim been closed now or are you still (although not being paid) signing on etc?

 

Were you told of and would you be eligible for hardship payments?

 

See here http://www.dwp.gov.uk/adviser/updates/jsa-sanction-changes/

 

WP Sanctions explained http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/wp-pg-chapter-3a-22-october-2012.pdf

 

CPAG sanction JSA briefing http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/regime-change-sanctions-and-law-claimants

 

DWP rules on hardship payments http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/dmgch35.pdf

 

Can't find anything newer!

[estellyn]

The Reilly & Wilson case revolved around a specific point regarding the information they had (or rather, had not) been given.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but reading between the lines, you are a parent with young children at school. Your case appears to be a matter of the provider not taking in to account your carer duties as a parent and deliberately making appointments that they know will conflict with other duties. This would make any ruling on the Reilly & Wilson case immaterial as the circumstances are different.

 

I would also list your local MP as a point of contact in addition to any CAB help.

 

Unfortunately, the first tier Tribunal decision appears to have been made due to not being duly notified, which IS related to the Reilly and Wilson case.

 

ETA: My first instinct is that there is very little that can be done about this. The Government has changed the law retroactively to mean they don't have to pay out in these cases, and now the case is being taken further by Reilly and Wilson (from what I understand). So although the first tier Tribunal can make their ruling in accordance with the precedent set by the case, until the Reilly and Wilson case is resolved, every other case will be on hold, and no payments will be made in the interim. Though I will read around some more to see if there is any round.

 

I think the OP shot themselves in the foot by simply not turning up for appointments. Had they followed a proper complaints process and showed evidence that they were being unfairly treated due to accomodations not being made for childcare responsibilities, then the appeal could have been made on different grounds (though I doubt it would have gone to appeal). Now the OP is stuck with relying on the outcome of this other case.

Edited April 20, 2013 by estellyn

[petes]

Unfortunately, the first tier Tribunal decision appears to have been made due to not being duly notified, which IS related to the Reilly and Wilson case.

 

ETA: My first instinct is that there is very little that can be done about this. The Government has changed the law retroactively to mean they don't have to pay out in these cases, and now the case is being taken further by Reilly and Wilson (from what I understand). So although the first tier Tribunal can make their ruling in accordance with the precedent set by the case, until the Reilly and Wilson case is resolved, every other case will be on hold, and no payments will be made in the interim. Though I will read around some more to see if there is any round.

 

I think the OP shot themselves in the foot by simply not turning up for appointments. Had they followed a proper complaints process and showed evidence that they were being unfairly treated due to accomodations not being made for childcare responsibilities, then the appeal could have been made on different grounds (though I doubt it would have gone to appeal). Now the OP is stuck with relying on the outcome of this other case.

 

My thoughts precisely.

 

It is no good just throwing your toys out of the pram because you think that the DWP/provider is being unfair or unreasonable, you have to follow protocol. The claimant should have taken advice at the earliest opportunity and dealt with matters in a more business manner - letters not conversations.

 

You should always bear in mind when dealing with the DWP or it's agents 'what could they do, 'what might they do' and 'what will they do' You should protect yourself at every step.

I have had the DWP in the past try to use terminology used by me in a letter I sent them against me when they attempted to close down one of my benefit claims. It was simply a play on words and the words put together could be viewed in two different ways.

 

Be very very careful when dealing with these people or their agents!!

[speedfreek]

Unfortunately, the first tier Tribunal decision appears to have been made due to not being duly notified, which IS related to the Reilly and Wilson case..

 

There could be a number of reason this could be said; the Reiily etal cases were for a specific situation! It's not the only reason this conclusion above might be drawn.

 

So....

 

This is probably something else and it could be that the script merchant was clutching at straws to get through their quota of calls and had to say something plausible but not strictly correct.

 

Admonishing the OP when we do not know the exact facts is a little rum!

Edited June 30, 2013 by citizenB

[estellyn]

There could be a number of reason this could be said; the Reiily etal cases were for a specific situation! It's not the only reason this conclusion above might be drawn.

 

So....

 

This is probably something else and it could be that the script merchant was clutching at straws to get through their quota of calls and had to say something plausible but not strictly correct.

 

Admonishing the OP when we do not know the exact facts is a little rum!

 

I wasn't admonishing anyone, apologies if it came across that way - just stating the realities.

 

The OP stated the reason the appeal was allowed, and the letter provided confirms it wasn't just a "script merchant".

 

The only relevant part of the court of appeal decision (Reilly and Wilson case) is the lack of sufficient information and notification, which is stated by the OP as the reason for the successful Tribunal outcome.

 

The DWP are subject to the same upper tribunal appeal timescales as the claimant who brought the case to FTT. So what happens next, is a statement of reasons is requested by DWP, and once received they can choose whether or not to appeal to the upper tribunal, within the relevant timescales, HOWEVER, if there is a relevant case pending at a higher court, then all lower court decisions on the same issue can be held pending the outcome of the test case.

Edited June 30, 2013 by citizenB

[worried33]

Unfortunately, the first tier Tribunal decision appears to have been made due to not being duly notified, which IS related to the Reilly and Wilson case.

 

ETA: My first instinct is that there is very little that can be done about this. The Government has changed the law retroactively to mean they don't have to pay out in these cases, and now the case is being taken further by Reilly and Wilson (from what I understand). So although the first tier Tribunal can make their ruling in accordance with the precedent set by the case, until the Reilly and Wilson case is resolved, every other case will be on hold, and no payments will be made in the interim. Though I will read around some more to see if there is any round.

 

I think the OP shot themselves in the foot by simply not turning up for appointments. Had they followed a proper complaints process and showed evidence that they were being unfairly treated due to accomodations not being made for childcare responsibilities, then the appeal could have been made on different grounds (though I doubt it would have gone to appeal). Now the OP is stuck with relying on the outcome of this other case.

 

Ok so I got it wrong, sorry to the OP.