compensatory payment for loss of use of benefit. ITS also described improvements they planned to their working practices and post handling. ITS spent several months trying Property Conveyancing to find it. When they could not do so they asked Mr A to submit a duplicate one. He did so in November. IT’S also belatedly realised that they had lost Mr T’s case file. It was reconstructed in March 1998 with papers provided by Mr A. Leave to appeal to a Commissioner was granted (twice) in April. After the intervention of the Ombudsman ITS awarded Mr T an ex gratia payment of £150 as compensation for inconvenience.
They also agreed to alert the Benefits property valuation Sydney Agency to the possible need to make a further payment for loss of use if Mr T’s appeal was eventually successful. ITS also described planned improvements to working practices and the handling of incoming post. On 4 March 1998 Mr Q’s representative (Mr A) applied to the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) for a
In February 1998 a social security appeal tribunal heard Miss W’s appeal against a decision that she was not entitled to incapacity benefit.Miss W asked the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) to send her a copy of the tribunal’s statement of material facts and reasons for their decision so that she could continue her appeal. ITS told Miss W’s representative in August that they had not received Miss W’s request. The representative wrote to ITS in September and October, but Miss W’s file was not traced.
In February 1999 ITS told Miss W’s representative that they would try to reconstruct Miss W’s file so that the tribunal chairman could prepare a statement of material facts and reasons. However, the chairman could not do so because ITS has no record of the appeal hearing. They alerted the Benefits Agency to the contingency that compensation would be due for loss of use of benefit if Miss W’s appeal were eventually successful.decision of a social security appeal tribunal to be set aside.