County Court Re DWP Lies: Tort of Deceit Applicable? Or Other Tort? Or Part 8 Claim?

[samsmoot]

Hi all.

Just wanted to get some suggestions on how best to deal with the problem of the Department of Work and Pensions making false statements of the law and thus preventing an appeal against a decision which is actually appealable. They say it's not but it definitely is.

Their last letter said that Third Party Deductions for water charges cannot be appealed. They also quoted the legislation, which actually says the opposite. A previous letter said that the letter prior to it was a Mandatory Reconsideration (as clarity was asked for), but an appeal was rejected as there was no Mandatory Reconsideration letter (which was the letter just referred to and attached to the appeal documents). An explanation about the decision said that the deductions were implemented to stop the customer being 'cut-off'.

A Letter Before Claim has been sent in relation to previous (but stopped at the claimant's request) unlawful deductions with the intent of getting repayment. This was to be by way of seeking an order that the unlawful deductions be repaid. Now that they have point blank lied, and prevented an appeal which the law says must be allowed, an order could be asked for which stops the deductions along with the first claim - for the convenience of the court etc more than anything.

A Part 8 Claim has worked in the past to get unlawful deductions stopped, in circumstances where the claimant had no previous notification of any debt owed whatsoever. So I think a Part 8 Claim would work for both sets of deductions (as it was all about the unlawfulness of deductions), seeking an order that the current deductions be stopped, and that all of the deductions are refunded. So fine, then, as far as that goes, but as there have now been four separate instances of unlawful deductions within the last 18 months the claimant would like some compensation, if possible.

So the question is whether or not to claim compensation due to damages caused by deceit, or negligence, or to just stick to seeking the orders for stoppage and reimbursement of the deductions. In the claim that succeeded the order asked for was just for the deductions to be stopped, but the judge ordered repayment as well, so I am confident that a judge can make an order or orders along the lines which will be suggested. Could the claimant ask for aggravated damages as part of the intended Part 8 claim? And get compensated that way?

The LBC to the DWP said that an order would be sought (in respect of the deductions that were stopped but not repaid), and that compensation would be asked for directly from the DWP once the claim succeeded (as the court may think this more appropriate). This new turn of events puts a different complexion on things, as now it's not only persistent, they have bare-faced lied on paper and thereby prevented a challenge to their unlawful decision.

Another Letter Before Claim now needs to go off, but I'm not completely sure what the threat will be, as I am having trouble finding the right heading to bring a claim which involves compensation - would simple negligence suffice? I don't think deceit will work as it doesn't seem completely appropriate.

[stevemLS]

Re: County Court Re DWP Lies: Tort of Deceit Applicable? Or Other Tort? Or Part 8 Cla

Sam, mate, you ignored all the advice you were given on your previous thread about the enforceability of water charges, I gather they are (!), why do you think anyone is going to waste time helping you pursue your next misguided battle.

[R0b]

Re: County Court Re DWP Lies: Tort of Deceit Applicable? Or Other Tort? Or Part 8 Cla

Might I ask why you think a Part 8 claim is suitable for this type of issue? Part 8 Claims usually involve non-monetary claims, and where there is no substantial dispute of fact. Does your problem fall into this category?

Are you acting on behalf of the claimant or defendant? I did look at your other thread you made and wonder if you work in a legal capacity or just a friend of the claimant or maybe work for a charity/advice service?

[samsmoot]

Re: County Court Re DWP Lies: Tort of Deceit Applicable? Or Other Tort? Or Part 8 Cla

Sam, mate, you ignored all the advice you were given on your previous thread about the enforceability of water charges, I gather they are (!), why do you think anyone is going to waste time helping you pursue your next misguided battle.

Because it's a different question and it's neither misguided, nor, as before, my battle.

As stated, a similar problem was successfully dealt with in court, but without the compensation element, so surely you can see that there's a valid claim here. Just need to know if compensation should be sought on top of repayment/stoppage of deductions, and if so, via what heading/cause of action.

I'm now going to look into breach of statutory duty, see if that fits.

[R0b]

Re: County Court Re DWP Lies: Tort of Deceit Applicable? Or Other Tort? Or Part 8 Cla

I suppose the question depends on whether DWP agree that there is not a dispute of facts at hand, then I guess you could issue a Part 8 claim. Otherwise it's the standard route.

As for the cause of action, claiming fraudulent misrepresentation (tort of deceit) you will need to provide evidence that the statement was relied upon. Negligence mistatement however would be a case of intentionally or recklessly giving a statement which is to the detriment of the person and has therefore suffered a loss As a result of the statement - this seems more appropriate.

[samsmoot]

Re: County Court Re DWP Lies: Tort of Deceit Applicable? Or Other Tort? Or Part 8 Cla

Might I ask why you think a Part 8 claim is suitable for this type of issue? Part 8 Claims usually involve non-monetary claims, and where there is no substantial dispute of fact. Does your problem fall into this category?

Well, the successful Part 8 wasn't about money per se - it was about the lawfulness of the deductions. Repayment of them was a bonus. Again there is no argument over the facts, or rather only the inarguable facts will be mentioned. So if one judge can order the deductions stopped and refunded, then so can another. Appeal was requested for 2nd & 3rd set of deductions, which were immediately stopped, so it should be undisputed that they were stopped because they were unlawful, and it then follows that they should be repaid. The current deductions continue to be unlawfully made, as in the first Part 8, so it seems appropriate. Simply showing the unlawfulness by way of reference to the legislation and the DWP's own statements seems an easier ride than proving wrongdoing, so it's more for the ease and certainty, as a judge may be reluctant to impose a financial penalty which will come out of the public purse if done under Part 7.

Are you acting on behalf of the claimant or defendant? I did look at your other thread you made and wonder if you work in a legal capacity or just a friend of the claimant or maybe work for a charity/advice service?

On behalf of the claimant, who is a friend.

[samsmoot]

Re: County Court Re DWP Lies: Tort of Deceit Applicable? Or Other Tort? Or Part 8 Cla

I suppose the question depends on whether DWP agree that there is not a dispute of facts at hand, then I guess you could issue a Part 8 claim. Otherwise it's the standard route.

As for the cause of action, claiming fraudulent misrepresentation (tort of deceit) you will need to provide evidence that the statement was relied upon. Negligence mistatement however would be a case of intentionally or recklessly giving a statement which is to the detriment of the person and has therefore suffered a loss As a result of the statement - this seems more appropriate.

Yes, thanks, maybe so. I have been looking at that and it's all a bit confusing. Can the negligent misstatement/s be said to have been relied upon? And thus caused damage? Not sure, as any damage is due to failure to comply with legislation, as opposed to having occurred as a result of any negligent misstatements, if you see what I mean.

[R0b]

Re: County Court Re DWP Lies: Tort of Deceit Applicable? Or Other Tort? Or Part 8 Cla

So what your saying then is that the claimant isn't fussed about receiving any compensation as regards to the unlawful deductions but just wants them stopped? Then I suppose you can proceed on Part 8. Any monetary claims involved I would instinctively issue under Part 7.

I am aware of costs only proceedings and issues where both parties agreed in advance being made under Part 8 but I am not aware of monetary claims being made as it's generally governed by Part 7.

That's probably as much help I can give

[samsmoot]

Re: County Court Re DWP Lies: Tort of Deceit Applicable? Or Other Tort? Or Part 8 Cla

So what your saying then is that the claimant isn't fussed about receiving any compensation as regards to the unlawful deductions but just wants them stopped? Then I suppose you can proceed on Part 8. Any monetary claims involved I would instinctively issue under Part 7.

I am aware of costs only proceedings and issues where both parties agreed in advance being made under Part 8 but I am not aware of monetary claims being made as it's generally governed by Part 7.

That's probably as much help I can give

Thanks. Yes, a Part 7 may get added compensation on top of repayment, which is preferred, and a Part 8 may (going on the previous claim) result in repayment being ordered. Maybe a money claim can be combined with the seeking of an order to stop the deductions. Don't see why not.

[samsmoot]

Re: County Court Re DWP Lies: Tort of Deceit Applicable? Or Other Tort? Or Part 8 Cla

Quick update.

A Letter Before Claim was sent to the DWP threatening a claim for damages due to negligent misstatement and breach of statutory duty. Any claim has now been put on hold due to an interesting development:

The Claimant had told the Courts & Tribunals Service and the Benefit Centre that one of them must be lying about whether or not there had been a Mandatory Reconsideration. Either the Benefits Centre Business Manager had lied in saying an MR had been made, or the Tribunal Clerk had lied in saying there hadn't been one.

Seems this had a bit of an impact as a Tribunal Judge has now issued a Directions Notice, which says this:


1. It sees to me that a mandatory reconsideration has taken place even though the usual mandatory reconsideration notice has either not been issued or has not been produced.

2. The appeal should be allowed to proceed and the respondent must issue an appeal response [by 29 October].

3. [The Claimant} should note that it remains open to the Secretary of State to assert that no mandatory Reconsideration has been undertaken and that would be a matter for the tribunal to consider should that be the point taken by the Secretary of State.


So that's a good result on the face of it, though it's uncertain how it might pan out. If the judge thinks there has been an MR, and the DWP think not - who's right? On a strict reading of the law I would say it's the DWP - because any MR must say on it that it is such, and it must also state that the Decision carries a right of appeal, which the purported MR didn't contain.

This all raises a lot of questions in my mind, such as how can there be an appeal if the document required by law to be provided prior to an appeal hasn't been issued? There's no leeway there as far as I can tell for a judge to decide otherwise. If a judge did decide this way I imagine the DWP would appeal it.

Anyway, things should be clearer by the middle of next week - hopefully the DWP will decided to stop the deductions. If not it could be a long battle.

[samsmoot]

Re: County Court Re DWP Lies: Tort of Deceit Applicable? Or Other Tort? Or Part 8 Cla

All over now. Judge decided in favour of Claimant at Tribunal Hearing today. Said DWP had no evidence that there was any debt, and he commented about their flouting of the Decision Maker Guidelines. The DWP didn't attend and it was over in minutes. And the Claimant gets back around £400. Pity it took threats of court action against the Tribunal Clerk to get this result.

[R0b]

Re: County Court Re DWP Lies: Tort of Deceit Applicable? Or Other Tort? Or Part 8 Cla

All over now. Judge decided in favour of Claimant at Tribunal Hearing today. Said DWP had no evidence that there was any debt, and he commented about their flouting of the Decision Maker Guidelines. The DWP didn't attend and it was over in minutes. And the Claimant gets back around £400. Pity it took threats of court action against the Tribunal Clerk to get this result.

So did you use Part 7 or Part 8 in the end?

[samsmoot]

Re: County Court Re DWP Lies: Tort of Deceit Applicable? Or Other Tort? Or Part 8 Cla

So did you use Part 7 or Part 8 in the end?

Neither - it was a Social Security Tribunal.

As indicated above a Tribunal Judge decided that the Appeal should be allowed to proceed, and it did. But only after the judge giving the DWP a few opportunities to provide submissions - eventually they sent in the paperwork and also provided an actual Mandatory Reconsideration on top of the one the judge decided was an MR.

The judge said they had failed at the first hurdle, as they had shown no evidence of the existence of any water debt in the name of the Claimant. He also remarked on the multiple failures to apply the Decision Maker Guidelines in making the deductions.

I have said this many times, to many different people and on many different forums, and I will say it again: the DWP and certain water companies conspire to unlawfully obtain money from benefit claimants.

There are reasons for this, mainly related to what's best for DWP administration*, and if the TPD scheme was administered properly that would be great for everyone. Unfortunately, what the Third Party Deduction Scheme for Water Charges should be - a scheme for those who are trying to pay their debt but are struggling - is actually something else in reality - a debt collection service for water companies which utilises corrupt enforcement practices.

* http://www.publications.parliament.u...2.htm#evidence