Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Penitent
    • By Penitent 20th Jul 17, 3:16 PM
    • 1,707Posts
    • 5,059Thanks
    Penitent
    Submitting evidence after requesting Upper Tribunal
    • #1
    • 20th Jul 17, 3:16 PM
    Submitting evidence after requesting Upper Tribunal 20th Jul 17 at 3:16 PM
    I appealed my PIP rejection and was rejected again at Tribunal (paper-based as I was unable to attend). I've put in a request for an Upper Tribunal based on them not taking into account whether I can do something reliably. My request is with the Judge, but they can't tell me when I'll hear back.

    In the meantime, I've finally received a letter from my consultant that I requested several months ago that clarifies some of the things mentioned in the original Tribunal decision.

    If I send it to them, will they be able to take it into account at this stage? I really don't want to phone them again and I don't have anyone who'll call them for me, so I was going to send it on the off-chance.

    I know I should just reapply based on my revised diagnoses, but my condition hasn't really changed and I can't go through the whole process again just to be told I look okay again.
Page 2
    • Penitent
    • By Penitent 26th Jul 17, 4:54 PM
    • 1,707 Posts
    • 5,059 Thanks
    Penitent
    I'm also slightly miffed by what I've just learned from another thread. The reason I had a paper-based appeal is that the DWP told me my only options were that or attending a Tribunal. I couldn't attend, so I had to have the paper-based one, even though I knew I was less likely to succeed if I wasn't able to speak to the Judge. I've now seen that people are allowed to "attend" the Tribunal via telephone. If the DWP had told me that was an option, that's what I would have done.
    • Alice Holt
    • By Alice Holt 26th Jul 17, 5:27 PM
    • 1,710 Posts
    • 1,868 Thanks
    Alice Holt
    In which case include that on your appeal submission to the UT, as a breach of natural justice.
    You were denied the option to give your evidence.
    • Penitent
    • By Penitent 26th Jul 17, 5:30 PM
    • 1,707 Posts
    • 5,059 Thanks
    Penitent
    Balls. Gave it to my mum to post this afternoon. Am I allowed to send an addendum?
    • Penitent
    • By Penitent 26th Jul 17, 5:38 PM
    • 1,707 Posts
    • 5,059 Thanks
    Penitent
    I did say in my reasons for appeal (and in previous letters) that the DWP suggested a paper-based appeal because I was unable to attend the Tribunal (it was given as an example of being unable to make journeys). I wasn't able to say that I wasn't told about the telephone option, though, since I didn't know it was an option until now.
    • Alice Holt
    • By Alice Holt 26th Jul 17, 5:38 PM
    • 1,710 Posts
    • 1,868 Thanks
    Alice Holt
    Don't see why not.

    Give the TS a ring to check.
    It's often done with FTT's.
    • Penitent
    • By Penitent 26th Jul 17, 5:43 PM
    • 1,707 Posts
    • 5,059 Thanks
    Penitent
    Thanks, Alice. I tried to call right after my previous post, but it's ringing out. I'm guessing they've gone home. I'll try them tomorrow.

    This is a long shot, but do you know if they accept emails? Since it's only a short addendum, it would make more sense than writing if they'll allow it.
    • Alice Holt
    • By Alice Holt 26th Jul 17, 5:53 PM
    • 1,710 Posts
    • 1,868 Thanks
    Alice Holt
    I think you are better posting it, but the TS will be able to guide you.
    They are generally very helpful.
    • Mersey
    • By Mersey 26th Jul 17, 6:24 PM
    • 1,662 Posts
    • 793 Thanks
    Mersey
    Penitent - in fact if you just google "mse forums Upper Tribunal Appeals Mersey", the caselaw I posted is still on an old thread - 'appealing to Upper Tribunal' - I posted it on 30.04.13


    Feel free to use - as that was cited in allowing the Appeal by the UT (after the FT refused).


    You can email the UT Admin team, yes. But best sending docs by post you that you can sign and date any additional papers you want to submit.
    Please be polite to OPs and remember this is a site for Claimants and Appellants to seek redress against their bank, ex-boss or retailer. If they wanted morality or the view of the IoD or Bank they'd ask them.
    • Penitent
    • By Penitent 26th Jul 17, 6:33 PM
    • 1,707 Posts
    • 5,059 Thanks
    Penitent
    Thanks, Mersey, found it. I'll read through later and see if there's anything else I can add to the addendum.

    I think part of my problem is that I have a tendency to freak out about the short deadline to return things and rush things. A few days later, I'm quoting Columbo: "One more thing..."
    • Penitent
    • By Penitent 4th Aug 17, 4:32 PM
    • 1,707 Posts
    • 5,059 Thanks
    Penitent
    The UT staff were indeed very helpful and I was allowed to add the addendum via email. They were kind enough to confirm it has been added to my file so I don't have to freak out about it. I've now had a letter confirming my application was received with the terrifying heading: "[my name] v The Secretary of State".

    I'm taking a break from MSE for a bit (I've been struggling for a while now and it's time to admit defeat). Will try to remember to add an update when I find out what they decide, though.
    • Penitent
    • By Penitent 11th Oct 17, 11:06 AM
    • 1,707 Posts
    • 5,059 Thanks
    Penitent
    Just adding a brief update before disappearing again. I'm not doing well mentally/emotionally at the moment, so I can't come back and reply properly for a while, but I had a guilty freakout last night, thinking you'd all think I was an ungrateful !!!!! for not coming back and updating.

    UT granted my request for an appeal, agreeing that the DWP/FTT had failed to justify its descriptor choice in light of the evidence provided. Waiting for the SoS's response. Still not hopeful, but it was worth it just to see a response from someone who'd clearly read everything and agreed with my concerns. Cried like an idiot when I read it. Suppose I'll be crying like an idiot when I get the SoS's response too, albeit for different reasons.

    2nd PIP claim was rejected using the same faulty/poorly explained reasoning. Currently at MR. At least I was able to use the first appeal to do a copy/paste job on the MR request. Ran out of fuel some time back and am rattling along on fumes at this point. Just need it to be over.
    • Mersey
    • By Mersey 11th Oct 17, 9:50 PM
    • 1,662 Posts
    • 793 Thanks
    Mersey
    Just adding a brief update before disappearing again. I'm not doing well mentally/emotionally at the moment, so I can't come back and reply properly for a while, but I had a guilty freakout last night, thinking you'd all think I was an ungrateful !!!!! for not coming back and updating.

    UT granted my request for an appeal, agreeing that the DWP/FTT had failed to justify its descriptor choice in light of the evidence provided. Waiting for the SoS's response. Still not hopeful, but it was worth it just to see a response from someone who'd clearly read everything and agreed with my concerns. Cried like an idiot when I read it.
    Originally posted by Penitent

    Well done for pursuing the matter.
    Please be polite to OPs and remember this is a site for Claimants and Appellants to seek redress against their bank, ex-boss or retailer. If they wanted morality or the view of the IoD or Bank they'd ask them.
    • Penitent
    • By Penitent 26th Oct 17, 11:13 AM
    • 1,707 Posts
    • 5,059 Thanks
    Penitent
    SoS has agreed with the Judge about one of the descriptors, but are arguing about the other based on a short, out of context quote from one of my letters, so this means having another Tribunal instead of just awarding the points suggested by the UT Judge. At this rate, they might as well just combine the Tribunals for the first and second claims (second claim is still at MR).
    Last edited by Penitent; 01-11-2017 at 10:40 AM.
    • Penitent
    • By Penitent 1st Nov 17, 10:49 AM
    • 1,707 Posts
    • 5,059 Thanks
    Penitent
    Have edited the post above for fear of upsetting others with self-harm issues. It's hard to keep the emotions out of things when your emotions are unstable.

    Does anyone know what happens when a case is sent back to the FTT? Will they have all the information that was submitted to the UTT or will they just go back to the form/report/initial appeal request? Are you allowed to submit additional evidence or can they only consider the evidence the first FTT had?
    • Alice Holt
    • By Alice Holt 1st Nov 17, 6:33 PM
    • 1,710 Posts
    • 1,868 Thanks
    Alice Holt
    They will have all the submissions and paperwork from the first FTT.
    I'm fairly sure they will also have the UT paperwork, which means they will be careful not to repeat the errors of the previous tribunal. So you can expect them to fully consider that activity / descriptor.
    You can submit further evidence (but since the date of the decision under review will be some time previous - you may well have already submitted all relevant evidence).

    Good luck - hope it goes well. Certainly the 2nd FTT, will be very keen to fully take account of all your evidence. It's likely your verbal evidence will be listened to more carefully this time round.
    • Penitent
    • By Penitent 1st Nov 17, 8:50 PM
    • 1,707 Posts
    • 5,059 Thanks
    Penitent
    Thanks, Alice.

    Do I get another giant pack of evidence paperwork when it goes back to the FTT? This all feels back to front and it's making my brain glitch.

    And is there any possibility at all of the SoS changing their mind and making an award between now and the new FTT? I submitted comments on the form I received with their submission (the one where you tick to say if the UT Judge needs to give reasons/have an oral hearing) explaining why the bit they quoted doesn't say what they said it does and quoting another UT decision that suggests the UT Judge and I suggested the right descriptor.

    There was no verbal evidence the first time around. I can't go to the Court and they didn't tell me I could take part by phone, so I had to have a paper-based appeal. Never, ever, EVER again. The FTT Judge basically did what the DMs do and went off the assessor's report. He barely referred to the evidence, didn't explain his descriptor choices properly, based my cognitive abilities on something I did several years ago, etc. It was awful.
    Last edited by Penitent; 01-11-2017 at 8:56 PM.
    • Alice Holt
    • By Alice Holt 1st Nov 17, 9:27 PM
    • 1,710 Posts
    • 1,868 Thanks
    Alice Holt
    Hi Penitent,

    Yes, you should get the evidence bundle again.

    I would think it's probably a slim chance of the DWP changing their decision before the 2nd FTT, I'm afraid.

    It's probably worth doing a submission for the 2nd FTT (so they have in writing what you would have said in an oral hearing). Feel free to PM me, if you think I could add something to help you with this process.
    Last edited by Alice Holt; 01-11-2017 at 9:30 PM.
    • Penitent
    • By Penitent 1st Nov 17, 10:03 PM
    • 1,707 Posts
    • 5,059 Thanks
    Penitent
    Thank you, again, Alice (and Mersey, for your help earlier). I think I know everything I need to quote, spell out and point at now. Unfortunately, it's spread across the various appeal requests as I was learning as I went along, so I imagine it's not very user-friendly. I'm going to go through everything top to bottom and try to create a sort of York Notes version of it to submit to the new FTT.

    Hard as it may be to believe, I used to be very good at condensing and simplifying things; people used to come to me when they needed help understanding stuff. Now...not so much. My mental illnesses have chipped away at what used to be a pretty decent brain, leaving a sort of moth-eaten, blathery lump. I've probably got a few months until the new Tribunal, though, so hopefully that'll be long enough to produce something sensible.
    • Penitent
    • By Penitent 27th Nov 17, 2:06 PM
    • 1,707 Posts
    • 5,059 Thanks
    Penitent
    Whatever faith I had in this system is now utterly spent. My second PIP claim has come back from MR--they just rubber-stamped the initial decision.

    This is despite me including the decision from the UT Judge on my first claim, which explains why those points are wrong and why they should take the evidence I sent into account instead of just going off the assessor's report. What's the point of MRs if even an UT Judge telling them they're wrong won't change their minds?

    So now I need to do yet another !!!!ing appeal. What an utter waste of everyone's time and taxpayers' money. I should probably be angry right now, but I'm just numb. I've had enough of this !!!!!!!!.

    ESA still not resolved either--that's likely to be next year now.
    • Penitent
    • By Penitent 27th Nov 17, 3:57 PM
    • 1,707 Posts
    • 5,059 Thanks
    Penitent
    Sorry, that was harsher than I intended. I just don't know what I'm supposed to do at this point. I spelled everything out, I referred to the descriptors and the regs, I included medical evidence from a specialist backing it up and an UT decision showing they weren't applying the descriptors correctly...and I still get a rubber stamp MR decision full of copy/pasted nonsense. I've filled in the forms for the appeal--my OCD demands it--but it just feels pointless.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,039Posts Today

7,615Users online

Martin's Twitter