Sanctionable Failures: Universal Credit’s failing sanctions regime and the harm it causes
One of my concerns about such a high success rate of this type of appeal is the cases where the claimant doesn't appeal.
The report recommends the current sanction regime should be revoked entirely or fundamentally reformed to ensure sanctions are applied as a genuinely last resort measure, only after clear warning, and make sanctions less severe.
PR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (UC) [2023] UKUT 290 (AAC)
While they underpin our legislation, it is unusual for Human Rights to be cited in appeals. It is even more unusual for such appeals to be successful.
In this case the appellant argued their rights under Article 14 had been breached. Upper Tribunal Judge Wright more than agreed, citing Section 6: (Acts of Public Authorities) when saying:
"Indeed, section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 placed an additional obligation on the tribunal to deal properly with this argument."
In allowing the appeal he did not remit the case to be heard again by a FTT but made the decision that ought to have been made in the first place.
I retired from the Department for Work and Pensions in 2019, spending my last few years in a team that handled appeals against decisions on entitlement to benefit.
I "presented" many appeals at First Tier Tribunals, explaining the decision and responding to any questions asked.
I usually found the tribunal judges to be knowledgeable about procedures and supportive towards claimants. However, since I got involved with REACH Advocacy, it's been interesting to see how often Upper Tier Tribunals find fault with how decisions were arrived at, or were not properly justified, so "revert" the case back to be heard again.
While not aimed at discussing Tribunal Procedures in detail, I hope this group is useful in raising general awareness of the fact that tribunal procedures exist, and helps increase understanding of "points of law" on which an appeal to the Upper Tribunal could become possible.
Article 6 starts off with:
Luton Borough Council v CM (HB)
Right to a fair trial "within a reasonable time"
There are strict time limits for lodging an appeal. Tribunals normally accept reasonable delay where it can be justified by either side.
A decision making authority lodging an appeal six days late? Upper Tribunal Judge Wikely might have gone with it, Instead, he explained why he didn't.
"The Upper Tribunal refused to extend time as it was not fair and just to do so, in part because the local authority had taken over five years to forward the claimant’s appeal to the First-tier Tribunal."