Department for Work and Pensions (“DWP”) lost First-tier Tribunal (SEC) appeal (of decision not to pay Personal Independence Payment (“PIP”))
Department for Work and Pensions (“DWP”) lost First-tier Tribunal (SEC) appeal (of decision not to pay Personal Independence Payment (“PIP”))
Birkenhead County Court entrance which was the venue for the First-tier Tribunal hearing (Social Entitlement Chamber)
By John Brace – Appellant
First publication date: Thursday 7th April 2022, 12:01 (BST).
Previous reports on the prior hearings (both of which were adjourned) in this same appeal held on 14th December 2021 and 28th February 2020 at the same venue can be read at either of these links (which will open a new page).
Appellant: Mr John Brace (unrepresented) Respondent: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (“DWP”) represented by Miss Green (Presenting Officer) Case number: SC062/19/01113 Location: 76 Hamilton St, Birkenhead CH41 5EN (ground floor) Mode of hearing: Hybrid (face to face/phone) Date and time of hearing: Tuesday 15th March 2022, 10.00 am Type: First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Judge: Judge Jenny Frances Lester-Ashworth First-tier Tribunal Medical Member: Dr Simon Jerome Lundy First-tier Tribunal Disability Member: Mrs M Walton
As I waited in the waiting area in the corridor before the hearing started, it was shortly after 9.40 am (just over two months) since Leonora had died and I felt upset. Leonora had represented me from the start of the appeal in November 2019 and during the previous two face to face hearings in 2021 and 2020) it was strange to be at this final hearing without her. This was an appeal of a mandatory reconsideration decision not to award PIP made by Jo Brown dated 24th October 2019. Continue reading “Department for Work and Pensions (“DWP”) lost First-tier Tribunal (SEC) appeal (of decision not to pay Personal Independence Payment (“PIP”))”
What reasonable adjustments were agreed for a First-tier Tribunal hearing in a PIP (Personal Independent Payment) appeal and why was an urgent hearing granted in a case that started in 2019?
What reasonable adjustments were agreed for a First-tier Tribunal hearing in a PIP (Personal Independent Payment) appeal and why was an urgent hearing granted in a case that started in 2019??
Birkenhead County Court entrance which was the venue for the First-tier Tribunal hearing (Social Entitlement Chamber)
By John Brace – Appellant
and Leonora Brace – Appellant’s Representative
First publication date: Saturday 1st January 2022, 21:37 (GMT).
Regular readers of this blog will know that I previously published a piece about a First-tier Tribunal hearing on the 14th December 2021 in Birkenhead involving an appeal of a PIP (Personal Independence Payment) mandatory reconsideration decision by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made in 2019.
Department for Work and Pensions (“DWP”) lost First-tier Tribunal (SEC) appeal (of decision not to pay Universal Credit) because of DWP’s inability to provide crucial communication from the DWP to the Claimant
Department for Work and Pensions (“DWP”) lost First-tier Tribunal (SEC) appeal (of decision not to pay Universal Credit) because of DWP’s inability to provide crucial communication from the DWP to the Claimant
By John Brace (Editor) and Leonora Brace (Co-Editor)
First publication date: 19th November 2021, 17:00 (GMT).
This is a report of a judicial hearing I virtually observed (with the aid of automatic captions) on Thursday 18th November 2021 in the Sutton Social Security and Child Support (“Sutton SSCS”) region. The mode of hearing was Cloud Video Platform (“CVP”).
First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber)
124. The General Regulatory Chamber hears a wide range of appeals on regulatory matters, for example charities, consumer credit, transport and appeals from decisions of the Information Commissioner. We do not currently charge fees for proceedings in this chamber, with the exception of appeals in relation to gambling licences. In these cases, the fee charged is based on the value of the licences that are in dispute. We are not proposing to change the fees for these proceedings.
125. In 2013–14 the estimated cost of the General Regulatory Chamber (including Gambling) was £1.6m. The fee income generated from Gambling proceedings (the only fee charging tribunal within the General Regulatory Chamber) was £11,600.
126. In the remaining jurisdictions within the General Regulatory Chamber, we have proposed one fee for an appeal decision on the papers and one fee for an oral hearing. Our proposal is to charge a fee of £100 to issue proceedings, which would entitle the claimant to a decision based on a review of the papers. The claimant may alternatively elect for an oral hearing, in which case a further fee of £500 would be payable. Based on current volumes, we estimate that this proposal would generate a cost recovery percentage of around 17% after remissions.
127. The fees will also apply to “reference” cases where cases are started in the first-tier Tribunal but have to be referred directly to the Upper Tribunal for a first instance hearing.
Questions
Question 14: Do you agree with the proposed fees for all proceedings in the General Regulatory Chamber: specifically £100 to start proceedings with a determination on the papers; and a further fee of £500 for a hearing? Please give reasons.
Question 15: Are there any proceedings in the General Regulatory Chamber that should be exempt from fees? Please give reasons.
I’d better explain a bit better what the above is about by explaining the process to making a FOI request.
You make a Freedom of Information Act request to a public body and if is turned down (whether in part or in full) you can ask the same public body for an internal review.
If at the internal review there is still information withheld and you feel that they shouldn’t have withheld the information you can appeal the internal review decision to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
If either the public body or the person making the FOI request disagree with the decision notice, they have 28 days to appeal the decision to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) which is part of the General Regulatory Chamber.
Appeals can then be made of decisions of the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) on a point of law only to the Upper Tribunal.
The consultation is proposing that if someone (whether the public body or the person making the request) wishes to challenge an ICO decision notice by appealing it to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) that there will be a charge of £100 if the decision is made on the papers and £500 if a hearing is required.
So what do readers think about this proposed change? Most of the appeals to ICO decision notices to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights) are by litigants in person, who unless they fall into one of the categories of people who don’t have to pay fees a fee of £100 or £500 may make them think twice before appealing a decision.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
