Refusal to Appeal to Upper Tribunal

killerkev

Morglin wrote: »

Disability advisers at the JC are usually worse than useless.:mad:

Remploy factories did serve a need, but the government have shut most of them down now.

Many disability charities have become WP's and target the fit more, as they are more likely to earn the fees, that way.

There is also the point that with so much unemployment, employers can cherry pick would be employees, and don't tend to pick disabled people.

Steven Hawking is like Douglas Bader -exceptional people, but as most fit people couldn't do what they have, a bit pointless as a comparison!

And, actually, Steven Hawking probably wouldn't be employable - he writes books, gives lectures etc., but he is not employed by anyone, and hasn't been for many years.

He also, by virtue of his books, can afford the very latest in equipment to assist him, and top quality care etc., - not available if you have no money.

Lin

I have to agree i think it is all just a tick box exercice for most JC But if the Government can have a headline like 1 million off disability benefits then to a lot of the public it will look good.
I tried to find out how many of the 1 million were actually in work but no one seems to know!!!

HOWMUCH

Can your wife claim WTC? have you put your details through
http://www.entitledto.co.uk/

killerkev

HOWMUCH wrote: »

Can your wife claim WTC? have you put your details through
http://www.entitledto.co.uk/

No our total income is to high. It is not so much about the money. I am in a much better position than many I know who are suffering income reductions with no prospect of ever gaining employment.
It is about how the system is not working, a ATOS nurse can say I don't have a problem despite never carrying out a examination that then becomes fact, the tribunal says we see no reason to overturn the findings (the problem is very complex )

HOWMUCH

Yes it's most annoying

Mersey_2

Have you requested permission to appeal direct to the Upper Tribunal yet? The First Tier Tribunal often refuses permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal; but, you can then request the written statement of reasons for that decision and seek leave to appeal direct to the Upper Tribunal.

cattermole

Mersey is correct and it will usually happen, even if you had been successful and had the DWP appealed the decision at first stage it is likely to be refused as the appeal judge will consider their own decision to be correct.

Once you have those you can look in more detail at what grounds there might be on a point of law to appeal direct to the Upper Tribunal.

killerkev

Mersey wrote: »

Have you requested permission to appeal direct to the Upper Tribunal yet? The First Tier Tribunal often refuses permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal; but, you can then request the written statement of reasons for that decision and seek leave to appeal direct to the Upper Tribunal.

With the refusal came the reasons in that they saw no error in law and that the First Tier Tribunal is able to interpret the descriptors as it sees fit. So there does not have to be any difference between descriptors if they say one activity come under a certain descriptor then I cannot challenge that ruling!!

skintmacflint

Are you sure there's an ESA descriptor about being able to reach above your head ? Are you sure that's not an obsolete question related to older Incapacity benefit ? Some of the qualifying criteria which counted for an IB award were removed when they introduced ESA. eg ability to kneel or bend. .

The only one I can remember reading about in ESA with regard to reaching, is

'Cannot raise either arm as if to put something in the top pocket of a shirt or jacket, indicating severe bilateral restriction of upper limb function. Resulting in an inablilty to reach to the upper chest. (looked it up in the ESA assessors handbook)

It doesn't mention anything about being ability to reacha bove your head? Could that be why the UT are refusing to accept your appeal.?

killerkev

skintmacflint wrote: »

Are you sure there's an ESA descriptor about being able to reach above your head ? Are you sure that's not an obsolete question related to older Incapacity benefit ? Some of the qualifying criteria which counted for an IB award were removed when they introduced ESA. eg ability to kneel or bend. .

The only one I can remember reading about in ESA with regard to reaching, is

'Cannot raise either arm as if to put something in the top pocket of a shirt or jacket, indicating severe bilateral restriction of upper limb function. Resulting in an inablilty to reach to the upper chest. (looked it up in the ESA assessors handbook)

It doesn't mention anything about being ability to reacha bove your head? Could that be why the UT are refusing to accept your appeal.?

Yes the Reaching descriptor is
a, cannot raise either arm as if to pit something in the top pocket of a coat 15 points
b, cannot raise either arm to top of head as if to put on a hat 9 points
c. cannot raise either arm above head height as if to reach for something 6 points
So I say combing you hair would come under b not c. but the tribunal is saying putting on a hat and combing your hair are different activity's I have been told I cannot challenge that as the tribunal can say what they want!!!
I used to get points under the old IB lifting, bending, kneeling as did lots of others,

rogerblack

killerkev wrote: »

Y
So I say combing you hair would come under b not c. but the tribunal is saying putting on a hat and combing your hair are different activity's I have been told I cannot challenge that as the tribunal can say what they want!!!
I used to get points under the old IB lifting, bending, kneeling as did lots of others,

As others have said - you need to find an error of law.
What this generally means is either:
You need to find a decision of the upper tribunal that says the decision of the tribunal is wrong.
The tribunal needs to have not properly explained its reasoning.

If you can do neither of these, then you are only left with the tribunal making an unreasonable decision. This is way beyond 'a decision which reasonable people could disagree with'.
It's a decision no reasonable person could agree with.

You can in principle appeal directly to the upper tribunal for permission to appeal.

http://www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/default.aspx - I can find no decisions which bear on reaching.