Login FormClose

Free ESA, PIP and DLA Updates

With over 140,000 subscribers our fortnightly updates bulletin is the UK's leading source of benefits news. Get the facts about what's changing, how it affects you and how to prepare.   Get your free benefits updates now.

Professional Members

We support both claimants and professionals.  These are just some of the organisations who have subscribed to Benefits and Work:

  • Royal College of Nursing
  • Spinal Injuries Association
  • Chesterfield Law Centre
  • Coventry Mind
  • Birmingham Citizens Advice Bureau
  • Colchester Borough Council Welfare Rights

Read more

Welcome, Guest
Username: Password:
Remember me. Note: ticking this may affect members file download ability.
Members

TOPIC: First Tier Tribunal Direction

First Tier Tribunal Direction 6 years 11 months ago #14174

Seasons Greeting

I have had a FtT decision set aside by a District Tribunal Judge and it’s been sent back for a rehearing.

In the DTJ directions they state to list as hearing allowing 1 hour. No mention of it being a differently constituted Tribunal.

Have the new FtT Regs done away with this requirement.

I’ve checked the Composition of Tribunals order 2008 and Tribunal, Courts & Enforcement Act 2007, but cannot see any reference to them having to have totally different Tribunal members at the re-hearing.

Is anyone able to reassure me that this important protection still exists / operates with in the FtT?
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re:First Tier Tribunal Direction 6 years 11 months ago #14175

  • Jim Allison
  • OFFLINE
  • retired Principal Welfare Rights Officer
Hi,

I sat on DLA Tribunals for 10 years until I retired in December 2005. At that time there were no tribunal judges, the legal member was a District Chairman or often a part-time chairman, but qualified solicitors.

Again, at that time there weren't called First-tier Tribunals, they were just 'tribunals' and any errors of law were dealt with by the Social Security Commissioners ( now called the Upper Tribunal)

A District Chairman (now called District Tribunal Judge) had the power to set-aside, but as far as I can recall, couldn't direct that the rehearing be by a differently constituted tribunal, although this invariably happened often, since it's quite hard to get the same tribunal panel together on the same day, since most panel members only work part-time.

To the best of my knowledge, the only person who can actually order that a tribunal rehearing be heard by a differently constituted tribunal is the Upper Tribunal, who in my day were called Social Security Commissioners.

I'm not sure if any other moderator can give a more definitive answer, as I'm the only one who actually sat on tribunals, unless Steve Donnison knows, and he's away as as most moderators are until 4 January 2010.

Presumably, the DTJ set the FtT decision aside on a point/error of law ?

Normally, the time slot for a rehearing is 40 minutes, so the fact you've been given just an hour seems to indicate there's not a lot to argue about.

Not sure if you have a representative, or you're representing yourself, whatever, you still have good odds of a 60 to 65% chance of success.

Have look at this link First Tier Tribunals it may help but I haven't had the time to check it out, as my wife's brother-in-law is terminally ill, so not a lot of time to spare.

Good luck and a very Happy New Year.

Jim
PLEASE READ THE SPOTLIGHTS AREA OF THE FORUM REGULARLY, OTHERWISE YOU MAY MISS OUT ON IMPORTANT INFORMATION. Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re:First Tier Tribunal Direction 6 years 11 months ago #14180

nct wrote:
Seasons Greeting

I have had a FtT decision set aside by a District Tribunal Judge and it’s been sent back for a rehearing.

In the DTJ directions they state to list as hearing allowing 1 hour. No mention of it being a differently constituted Tribunal.

Have the new FtT Regs done away with this requirement.

I’ve checked the Composition of Tribunals order 2008 and Tribunal, Courts & Enforcement Act 2007, but cannot see any reference to them having to have totally different Tribunal members at the re-hearing.

Is anyone able to reassure me that this important protection still exists / operates with in the FtT?

Section 13(2) of the Social Security Act 1998 deals with the position where a tribunal's decision is set aside by a person which in your case was a District Tribunal Judge.

In essence, what it says is that the appeal can be referred to either the same tribunal or a differently constituted tribunal. This decision would invariably be determined by a DTJ taking into account the reason why the original tribunal's decision was set aside?

The relevant legislation can be read HERE.
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re:First Tier Tribunal Direction 6 years 11 months ago #14182

  • Jim Allison
  • OFFLINE
  • retired Principal Welfare Rights Officer
Thanks for that CD, just didn't have the time to check things out before I
posted.

However, it did jog my memory that under section 13 (3) If each of the principal parties to the case expresses the view that the decision was erroneous in point of law, the person shall set aside the decision and refer the case for determination by a differently constituted tribunal.

Kind regards.

Jim
PLEASE READ THE SPOTLIGHTS AREA OF THE FORUM REGULARLY, OTHERWISE YOU MAY MISS OUT ON IMPORTANT INFORMATION. Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Last Edit: 6 years 11 months ago by Jim Allison. Reason: Added information.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re:First Tier Tribunal Direction 6 years 11 months ago #14185

Jima1 wrote:
Thanks for that CD, just didn't have the time to check things out before I
posted.

However, it did jog my memory that under section 13 (3) If each of the principal parties to the case expresses the view that the decision was erroneous in point of law, the person shall set aside the decision and refer the case for determination by a differently constituted tribunal.

Kind regards.

Jim

From personal experience, section 13(3) is more likely to be used where a case has been referred to the UT, and the Judge decides to make a summary decision with the agreement of the interested parties, and refers the case back to be reheard by a different tribunal.

Section 13(2) would more likely be appropriate where a LQPM, usually a District Tribunal Judge, identifies an error of law prior to a referral to a UT Judge.

In my opinion, if a tribunal made an error of law at the first hearing I would not want it to be reheard by the same tribunal, as I would have no confidence to expect them to get it right a second time. In this situation I would request that a referral be made in accordance with section 13(3), thus allowing a differently constituted tribunal to rehear the appeal.
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Moderators: bro58, Gordon, Mrs Hurtyback, shelam
Time to create page: 0.244 seconds