Ingeus telephone interview

Morglin

You can record the call, for your own recollections, and as you are not appealing (to tribunal) anything the WP are doing, it won't be a problem.

The problem here is not the WP, Ingeus, as they are only doing what has been decided by the DWP (that she can take part in work related activities).

The issue is that she needs to be in Support Group, and you really need to wait for the decision letter, before you can go further with that.

Lin

rogerblack

Morglin wrote: »

You can record the call, for your own recollections, and as you are not appealing (to tribunal) anything the WP are doing, it won't be a problem.

Tribunals are not criminal courts.
The rules of evidence are very much broader - and they are basically 'everything that is relevant that is brought to the attention of the tribunal'.

Also - you may end up appealing things the work provider does to the tribunal.

Morglin

I have attended more than a few tribunals, and they have said, on every occasion, that they will not accept covert recordings.

They obviously will accept any evidence from recordings made at ATOS offices, with their full knowledge.

The OP's problem is not the WP, but the fact that the lady concerned sounds as though she is in the wrong group, a decision made by the DWP, after her ATOS assessment..

She has a new claim pending, (review) and if she gets put into SG, the problem will be solved.

If she needs to appeal, anything between her and the WP would not be relevant to appealing the DWP decision on group.

Lin

aimee0763

Morglin wrote: »

You can record the call, for your own recollections, and as you are not appealing (to tribunal) anything the WP are doing, it won't be a problem.

The problem here is not the WP, Ingeus, as they are only doing what has been decided by the DWP (that she can take part in work related activities).

The issue is that she needs to be in Support Group, and you really need to wait for the decision letter, before you can go further with that.

Lin

Thank you Lin, yes I will wait for the esa50 decision before going further, just got an email from ingeus the guy was trying to ring but couldn't get through the fact that I have given them the correct number I am surprised, I shall record the telephone call, last time I recorded the appointment in their office it was done in a private room they had no problem with that also I have been informed to record any phone call with those people just incase they don't note down what has been said for personal purposes anyway cathy tend to forget everything and then would worry herself too much.

rogerblack

Morglin wrote: »

I have attended more than a few tribunals, and they have said, on every occasion, that they will not accept covert recordings.

My understanding is that to not accept them may be an error of law, and lead to the tribunal result being appeal-able.

How many tribunals have you seen this happen in?

Do 'one-sided' recordings have the same evidential weight as 'proper' two-tape-recorder or whatever ones - no.

The below is an extract from http://www.cfrlaw.co.uk/fs/doc/articles/can-covert-recordings-be-used-as-evidence-in-industrial-tribunal-claims.pdf

Can covert recordings be used as evidence in Industrial Tribunal claims?
The question of when secret recordings might be used as evidence in the context of employment
claims has recently started to become an issue for employers and is likely to remain a concern given
the increasingly sophisticated nature of smart phone technology and the availability of other
inexpensive recording devices.
The EAT has recently ruled on the admissibility in evidence of such covert recordings in the case of
Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham (2013).
In this case the original tribunal Judge had refused the claimant's application to adduce in evidence
39 hours' worth of covert recordings of contact between herself, managers and other colleagues. The
EAT dismissed the appeal on the basis that the Judge was correct in refusing the application as
neither the recordings themselves nor transcripts had been made available. The EAT went on to hold,
however, that although they found the practice of making secret recordings distasteful, there was no
reason why none of the recordings should be admissible in evidence as some of the material could
potentially be relevant to the case and ought to be admitted in the interests of justice.
Following this decision it is clear that any application to adduce such evidence must be focused on a
limited selection of relevant material and supported by transcripts.

This is not a social security tribunal - however my understanding is that the rules of evidence in both cases are identical.

Broadly - if it is relevant - it can be considered.
If it's not relevant, it should be ignored.
The strict rules of evidence about what can be used in a criminal court do not apply to tribunals.