dragonrouge Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Sorry what I meant to say was both of the cases heard by Judge Mesher were cases were the claimants had appealed against the hearing of the Tribunal. I am not too sure if that is the only thing that sets these cases apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony F Dordogne Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Things are moving along well in the background with lots of developments on how to deal with the DWP/ExpoTeam. For anybody who is trying to get DLA/AA/CA and is having problems with the DWP/ExpoTeam and who haven't yet signed up to the dedicated web site, the link is:http://dla-ecj.weebly.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony F Dordogne Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Well, after snoozing for a few weeks - well, actually doing a lot of the work in the background - it appears as tho some of the 'complex issues' being argued by the DWP/ExpoTeam have been resolved by their seniors and they are sending out decisions to claimants and have been doing so for a few weeks.If you get a letter, allowing or disallowing and you've not already do so, please go to the decicated website where you may be able to get help.We have some interesting legal arguments and lots of other stuff still going on in the background. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockstitch Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Hi, Tony, Itried to email you but it wouldn't send can you send me your email. It's regarding DLA movement.Regards Sue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guile Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 At last.Someone I know has had their DLA re-instated and back paid to when the new forms were filled in last year. Not good enough really as the back pay should be from when it was stopped a few years ago, so more forms have to be filled in.But at least it's a start and a good result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Interesting that Guile.You say "a few years ago" so how did your friend get around the 26 week qualifying period? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guile Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Her Dad is still working in the UK and she is at school in France.Maybe that's the reason but never the less, it should never have been stopped in 2006. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony F Dordogne Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 Sorry Guile, I'm totally confused now. When did this girl leave the UK because that would have determined whether her DLA was stopped. If it was stopped in 2006, before the ECJ judgement of October 2007, that's what the UK should - in error of law - have done whilst they were working under their old rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guile Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 It was 2006.Pity that people had to find out the hard way as to being able to get it re-instated.I wonder how many expats are unaware of the new situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony F Dordogne Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Guile, could you ask your chum if you can pass contact details on please. Clearly, the person in question would not have passed one of the tests that the DWP are imposing if she/her family moved to France in 2006 and may not have passed the second test, both of which are being used to block current reinstatement cases. Her age and her father's place of work are immaterial.It would be interesting to see how the family managed to sidestep the tests which are being imposed on other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guile Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 There is nothing flawed about it. The forms were filled out in September last year and the back payments are also from last September. That is a fact!What I have found is that the DWP will twirl folks as long as they are allowed to get away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony F Dordogne Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Guile, it would be really helpful if you could answer my questions, the answers may help a lot of people and will help to stop the DWP twirling people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guile Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 The actual letter confirming the back pay and re-instatement actually had no DWP staff persons name on it, nor a date showing when it was typed up. It did of course come from Warbreck House.That of course confuses things as a claim has now to go in for further back dating of payments and there is only a month in which to do that. The forms to do that are apparently on the way.The letter also came via Belgium for some unknown reason. Is that a ruse to delay things further?What I did hope to convey is that things are not as dire as people think and that re-instatement can happen. It has taken a long time but was worth the wait.Shame on the Government though for not pushing this issue.Hope that helps a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony F Dordogne Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 Ummmm, had that information from elsewhere but thanks anyway.What would be useful is to understand how the person claiming got round the 26 week, past presence rule becasuse that is what the DWP is using to prevent people getting their benefit. As this person left the UK prior to the EDCJ judgement, she must have had to get over that hurdle and that's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guile Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 To be quite honest, I don't know.I can only assume it is to do with Dad still working in the UK and paying NI + UK tax. I could be wrong! I'm sure the DWP would not let the cat out of the bag on that one!The fact still remains though that it has been re-instated.This also opens the way for the persons carer to pursue a back dated claim for CA. The carer by the way is still with the disabled person! Forms for that claim winging their way to France right now I believe.Maybe the DWP have spending targets to meet. Maybe madam Kettle is ignorant of the law. Who knows!I only hope that all of the folks deprived of their rightful benefits win them back ASAP.Good luck in your quest Tony F. I wish you well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonrouge Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Dear Guile I have had some considerable input with Tony F plus others into the DLA scenario. Some little time ago I put LF on the back burner in that I have another project on the go at the moment but just happened to glance at DLA this morning.I am a lawyer and as a say with others I have see lots of documents lots of guidance notes and lots of judgments and with my friends have drafted a document on the subject of DLATony F is absolutely correct in relation to the 26/52 rule and from where I am sat it is impossible to circumvent that particular argument at this moment in time and it is something please believe me that we have been trying to do for many months now.So it is not easy to do and indeed I would say very difficult.Tony F maybe maybe we are not seeing the whole picture.I wish everyone well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Âme Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Regarding the reference to the person's father continuing to live/work in the UK; is the person in receipt of DLA a minor, perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony F Dordogne Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Ame, that's not the point unfortunately. The claimant is the child (tho a parent lives and works in the UK and I suspect that may have been used as a device in this instance) and she lives in France and therefore cannot meet the criteria for reinstatement of DLA for a number of reasons which are being used by the DWP to block claims. I think that as DR says, there is much more going on here because thos involved in the campaign and the preparation of the legal arguments KNOW for a certainty that this cannot have happened as easily as Guile is indicating. Guile, you seem to know so much about the system, where the letters are from, all the things that people involved in the campaign or around the campaign know but not how this benefit was reinstated - have we spoken before somewhere else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guile Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 No, we have not spoken. In fact I have kept this quiet until the DLA was re-instated so as not to rock the boat. I'm sure you will understand that.Here are the facts;Dad and 14 year old daughter leave the UK in 2006. Dad still works in the UK.DLA is stopped within weeks.Dad complains and is told you don't live in the UK so your daughter loses DLA.Last year Dad saw the internet info' regarding the EEC ruling so contacts the DWP for a re-instatement.Forms were sent last year as previously mentioned, filled in and returned to Blackpool.Out of the blue back pay is put in the bank and the DLA is re-instated.The letter confirming that arrived a few days later but was not signed nor did it have a date on it. From whom it came at Blackpool is unclear other than it's the DWP.That's it.If it is to do with Dad still paying NI I'm not sure. It's a possibility I suppose.Many regards and good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 [quote user="Guile"]Dad and 14 year old daughter leave the UK in 2006. Dad still works in the UK.[/quote]Hello again Guile. This tale gets curiouser and curiouser. This part of your last post seems to be at odds with itself. How can dad still be working in the UK if he's already left? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Maybe he commutes, or the mariage split up.....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony F Dordogne Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Maybe Gay but that doesn't detract from the fact that the child is supposed to be in school here in France, dad's location, place of work and state of his marriage etc is immaterial. There is no way that the DWP have paid this benefit as easily as that, they're fighting tooth and nail to stop payments, ignoring both European law, UK law and case law, Judges directions etc etc.This just isn't the way things are done - I suspect I know how this has happened but I'll keep my counsel on that I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guile Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 The Gay comment is insulting.Your suspicion comment seems to insinuate something unlawful.The wife died of Cancer by the way.The reason, as I have just found out, is that the child is a family member of someone who works in the UK plus spends more time there than in France. Simple as that.It does prove that things can be reversed by the DWP though.Good luck to you all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clair Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 [quote user="Guile"]The Gay comment is insulting.[/quote]Gay was replying to a poster asking for clarification. I fail to see an insult in her post. Your suggestion there is an insult is frankly puzzling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Probably because Guile is used to 'Gay' being a statement of sexuality rather than a first name....Never assume! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.