[2025] UKUT 337 (AAC)

(1A) Where a decision maker receives a notice of appeal from an appellant under rule 23(2), the decision maker must send or deliver a response to the Tribunal so that it is received as soon as reasonably practicable after the decision maker received the notice of appeal.

It would appear from the tribunal file that the case was not referred to tribunal until 21 November 2011, there being a note on the notification of appeal form “We believe this appeal has been submitted in July but no trace has been made.” According to the claimant in his submissions to the First-tier Tribunal, during the period of delay Wychavon continually stated to him that they could take as long as they liked in submitting the appeal and that their internal resources were such that they had to externally source the preparation of the tribunal application. Whatever the truth of this, and Wychavon has not had the opportunity to respond to this claim, the delay by Wychavon in notifying the appeal to the tribunal was wholly unacceptable. I also note from the bundle of documents submitted by the claimant to the tribunal at the tribunal hearing that the reference to the tribunal only occurred after intervention by the claimant’s MP in November 2011.

There is no excuse whatsoever for such delay by Wychavon.  Claimants can suffer severe hardship if a claim for benefit is refused. The duty to initiate the appeal proceedings that might lead to the amelioration of that hardship is placed on the council whose decision is being appealed. Independently of any special provision in the regulations, there is a duty on them to act with reasonable speed in forwarding notification of the appeal to the tribunal. They cannot simply do it as and when they please and while some allowance may be made for temporary staff shortages or similar problems, a delay even from late December to July would be unacceptable, let alone one until the following November which is then only remedied after the local MP has intervened.

The Local Government Ombudsman has made it clear in Complaint No 01/C/13400 against Scarborough BC that authorities should aim to refer all appeals to HMCTS within 28 days. As I also pointed out in CH/3497/2005, a claimant is entitled under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights to have his or her appeal heard within a reasonable time, and this could be particularly important in housing benefit cases where a delay could cost a tenant his home. It is unlawful for a local authority or any other public authority to act (which includes a failure to act) in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right (Human Rights Act 1998, s.6(1), (6)). The conduct of Wychavon in this case was wholly unacceptable and inconsistent with the proper conduct of this appeal.

In addition, it appears to me that taking the administrative step normally required to commence proceedings before the tribunal is a duty of the relevant council which now falls within regulation 2(4) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (SEC) Rules 2008 which provides that parties must help the tribunal to further the overriding objective and co-operate with the tribunal generally. The overriding objective is defined in regulation 2(1) as dealing with cases fairly and justly and regulation 2(2) provides that this includes ensuring so far as practicable that the parties are able to participate fully in the proceedings and avoiding delay so far as compatible with proper consideration of the issues. A failure for almost a year to take the simple administrative step needed to commence the proceedings, the tribunal already having jurisdiction (R(H) 1/07) clearly prevented the claimant from participating in the proceedings during that time and caused serious delay which was not compatible with the proper consideration of the issues.