Refusal to Appeal to Upper Tribunal

killerkev

Thanks roger black
I may appeal direct, but the only error I can see is that the tribunal has not given any weight to reaching above head height, it should clearly mean reaching for something and that anyone would reasonably come to the conclusion that combing your hair is not reaching

Mersey_2

killerkev wrote: »

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!!

I should have added that an error in law includes if the First Tier Tribunal did not follow correct procedure in reaching their decision.

This includes if they failed to consider all of the relevant facts. So have a think what was said and re-read their statement of reasons.

Let me know if y ou'd like me to add any relevant caselaw from the decisions of the Upper Tribunal, as that website isn't the best to find your way around even for those used to doing so!