Post by nickd on Dec 22, 2010 13:34:07 GMT 1
From a Welfare Benefits/Debt Specialist Help point supplier.
Let me tell you yet another story about how Legal Help assists our clients as they face the full weight of welfare reform. Certain elements of the client’s case are ongoing; this provides an objective opportunity to comment on the case as the outcome is unknown.
Mrs B presents at our specialist help point, already having visited a criminal defence solicitor, CAB and also a Financial Inclusion Worker. Mrs B was heavily depressed, having a mental health history and also suffering from reactive depression following the bereavement of her mother, Mrs B had been completely unable to cope with all that she was facing which included an allegation that she had been living together with her ex husband who she still sees on a regular basis; as he takes an active part of their children’s lives. Mrs B had been interviewed under caution very shortly after her mother died. No formal prosecution has been furthered.
It was apparent that Mrs B’s case would need to be unravelled to deal with each separate element; people had been put off from getting involved with the complexities, because it just wasn’t clear where to begin.
A need to appeal was identified, against a total disallowance decision on Mrs B’s Employment & Support Allowance and Disability Living Allowance. It was also necessary to make late appeals against Income Support, Jobseeker’s Allowance, Housing & Council Tax Benefit overpayment appeals related to the ‘living together’ allegation. These are the kind of cases the media loves; they would have had Mrs B down as a ‘scrounger’, a ‘cheat’, a ‘faker’ and a ‘fraudster’.
An appeal was justified against the disallowance on the Disability Living Allowance, submissions were prepared and the Tribunal made an award. Legal Aid cost £167
An appeal was justified against the disallowance on the Employment & Support, submissions were prepared and the Tribunal made an award. Legal Aid cost £167
The overpayment appeals have been conjoined and run to many hundreds of pages, a submission dealing with case management matters, the legalities, requests for directions, witness statements and case law judgments has been submitted running to well over 100 pages; a Tribunal Judge sensibly allocated a two day slot for hearing the case.
We represented (not claiming under Legal Help) the hearing and the authorities started to present their case. In the afternoon it was clear that the authorities had overlooked some of the fundamental necessities of bringing a case for recovery of an overpayment. Much as though Mrs B and her supporting witnesses wanted to give their side of the story, it was appropriate to make an application to adjourn on a legal argument over whether the case should be (a) dismissed or (b) the authorities should being given an opportunity to correct the deficiencies. It is our view that the case should be dismissed because the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to correct the deficiencies brought about by the authorities inadequate preparation of the case. The allegations are strongly contested, but as it is ongoing we can say no more.
The application to adjourn was accepted and further legal argument will be convened at a later date.
As an organisation we are unable to collect any fee until the case is complete, but I just wonder how much all of this has cost the State so far? I wonder how we might not be where we are if the authorities had taken a less targeted approach and spoken informally to Mrs B rather than assume she was all the things the media loves people like her to be.
On my way home from the hearing, I asked myself how Mrs B would have coped without specialist help? There is no way on the earth she could possibly have coped, no way on earth. This is the kind of case where Legal Help makes a difference; let’s be sensible and not take it away.
Let me tell you yet another story about how Legal Help assists our clients as they face the full weight of welfare reform. Certain elements of the client’s case are ongoing; this provides an objective opportunity to comment on the case as the outcome is unknown.
Mrs B presents at our specialist help point, already having visited a criminal defence solicitor, CAB and also a Financial Inclusion Worker. Mrs B was heavily depressed, having a mental health history and also suffering from reactive depression following the bereavement of her mother, Mrs B had been completely unable to cope with all that she was facing which included an allegation that she had been living together with her ex husband who she still sees on a regular basis; as he takes an active part of their children’s lives. Mrs B had been interviewed under caution very shortly after her mother died. No formal prosecution has been furthered.
It was apparent that Mrs B’s case would need to be unravelled to deal with each separate element; people had been put off from getting involved with the complexities, because it just wasn’t clear where to begin.
A need to appeal was identified, against a total disallowance decision on Mrs B’s Employment & Support Allowance and Disability Living Allowance. It was also necessary to make late appeals against Income Support, Jobseeker’s Allowance, Housing & Council Tax Benefit overpayment appeals related to the ‘living together’ allegation. These are the kind of cases the media loves; they would have had Mrs B down as a ‘scrounger’, a ‘cheat’, a ‘faker’ and a ‘fraudster’.
An appeal was justified against the disallowance on the Disability Living Allowance, submissions were prepared and the Tribunal made an award. Legal Aid cost £167
An appeal was justified against the disallowance on the Employment & Support, submissions were prepared and the Tribunal made an award. Legal Aid cost £167
The overpayment appeals have been conjoined and run to many hundreds of pages, a submission dealing with case management matters, the legalities, requests for directions, witness statements and case law judgments has been submitted running to well over 100 pages; a Tribunal Judge sensibly allocated a two day slot for hearing the case.
We represented (not claiming under Legal Help) the hearing and the authorities started to present their case. In the afternoon it was clear that the authorities had overlooked some of the fundamental necessities of bringing a case for recovery of an overpayment. Much as though Mrs B and her supporting witnesses wanted to give their side of the story, it was appropriate to make an application to adjourn on a legal argument over whether the case should be (a) dismissed or (b) the authorities should being given an opportunity to correct the deficiencies. It is our view that the case should be dismissed because the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to correct the deficiencies brought about by the authorities inadequate preparation of the case. The allegations are strongly contested, but as it is ongoing we can say no more.
The application to adjourn was accepted and further legal argument will be convened at a later date.
As an organisation we are unable to collect any fee until the case is complete, but I just wonder how much all of this has cost the State so far? I wonder how we might not be where we are if the authorities had taken a less targeted approach and spoken informally to Mrs B rather than assume she was all the things the media loves people like her to be.
On my way home from the hearing, I asked myself how Mrs B would have coped without specialist help? There is no way on the earth she could possibly have coped, no way on earth. This is the kind of case where Legal Help makes a difference; let’s be sensible and not take it away.