Tribunal Question?

tyler2027

I don't disagree with the majority of your last post.


I disagree about the challenging of oral statements by the DWP.
There is no relevant legislation because the DWP have no legal right to speak as they are present as 'amicus curie". From that link you will see explanations of what the DWP can and cannot do from Jim Allison, retired Principal Welfare Rights Officer and VIP when it comes to fighting the corner for people like us. They have no legal right to challenge because they are not there in a legal capacity. They can only ask and answer questions for the benefit of the panel to clarify something the claimant has said.


It may well be that the digitial system makes both the claimant and the DWP legal participants, and that's why these new officers will be up to speed on every case as they may have a lot more input. Just my opinion, hope I'm wrong


I agree that the future tribunal system will disadvantage claimants, overall. The benefits of skyping and relieving the pressure of attending will be a positive. The top negative aside from my previous point of claimants lack of technology - is the loss of the three chair panel, particularly the loss of the disability advisor. We are then reliant on one judge. And case law shows us that judges differ in their evaluation of what the DWP words and terminology mean.


Of course the whole process is being changed to the disadvantage of the claimant. There will be a few positives -less stress not having to attend in person, and being able to give that all important oral evidence that results in higher success rates. As long as you capable of doing a virtual hearing, and get one in the first place.


Yes, your post explains the reality for most of us. Little access out their to welfare specialists for advice, and where it exists, little chance of getting an appointment in time. The sheer stress and exhaustion that comes with going for a tribunal, along with lower anticipated success rates is going to put people off. That's the whole point, stop em appealing, and make it more challenging, make sure the success rate drops.


Maybe, said in more hope than knowledge, we have to wait and see what happens. When the govt change processes to benefit them, it usually doesn't and end up costing more than the intended savings. And they have to back track. Think of ESA - get 20% off benefits save X amount. Private firm ends up doing too many assessments (because everyone's award has to reviewed every so many months or years). Cost of private firm services escalate, projected savings disappearing fast. What great initiative have they come up with - lets look at the most seriously affected by certain conditions and not reassess them. Oh, that'll be the equivalent of the old lifetime award then?.


Ok, trying to end this on a positive note (I'm really trying!)..Maybe whilst the success rates drop because of more paper appeals.....more people than ever lodge an appeal (no longer put off by the potential face to face, and peed off enough to think sod it, got nothing to lose and peed off enough by the change to think sod it, its the only protest action I can take). Can the system handle an increased workload, wouldn't that cost the govt/tribunal/dwp more in the long run? how long would it take for backlogs to build up?, a judge can only do so many cases per day. Will paper hearings take a lot more time than present because of nit picking - from both sides :-)

rockingbilly

tyler2027 wrote: »

I don't disagree with the majority of your last post.


I disagree about the challenging of oral statements by the DWP.
There is no relevant legislation because the DWP have no legal right to speak as they are present as 'amicus curie". From that link you will see explanations of what the DWP can and cannot do from Jim Allison, retired Principal Welfare Rights Officer and VIP when it comes to fighting the corner for people like us. They have no legal right to challenge because they are not there in a legal capacity. They can only ask and answer questions for the benefit of the panel to clarify something the claimant has said.


It may well be that the digitial system makes both the claimant and the DWP legal participants, and that's why these new officers will be up to speed on every case as they may have a lot more input. Just my opinion, hope I'm wrong


I agree that the future tribunal system will disadvantage claimants, overall. The benefits of skyping and relieving the pressure of attending will be a positive. The top negative aside from my previous point of claimants lack of technology - is the loss of the three chair panel, particularly the loss of the disability advisor. We are then reliant on one judge. And case law shows us that judges differ in their evaluation of what the DWP words and terminology mean.


Of course the whole process is being changed to the disadvantage of the claimant. There will be a few positives -less stress not having to attend in person, and being able to give that all important oral evidence that results in higher success rates. As long as you capable of doing a virtual hearing, and get one in the first place.


Yes, your post explains the reality for most of us. Little access out their to welfare specialists for advice, and where it exists, little chance of getting an appointment in time. The sheer stress and exhaustion that comes with going for a tribunal, along with lower anticipated success rates is going to put people off. That's the whole point, stop em appealing, and make it more challenging, make sure the success rate drops.


Maybe, said in more hope than knowledge, we have to wait and see what happens. When the govt change processes to benefit them, it usually doesn't and end up costing more than the intended savings. And they have to back track. Think of ESA - get 20% off benefits save X amount. Private firm ends up doing too many assessments (because everyone's award has to reviewed every so many months or years). Cost of private firm services escalate, projected savings disappearing fast. What great initiative have they come up with - lets look at the most seriously affected by certain conditions and not reassess them. Oh, that'll be the equivalent of the old lifetime award then?.


Ok, trying to end this on a positive note (I'm really trying!)..Maybe whilst the success rates drop because of more paper appeals.....more people than ever lodge an appeal (no longer put off by the potential face to face, and peed off enough to think sod it, got nothing to lose and peed off enough by the change to think sod it, its the only protest action I can take). Can the system handle an increased workload, wouldn't that cost the govt/tribunal/dwp more in the long run? how long would it take for backlogs to build up?, a judge can only do so many cases per day. Will paper hearings take a lot more time than present because of nit picking - from both sides :-)

Thank you.
I'm not disagreeing with anything you say. However the reality sometimes doesn't fit with the
legality.
I have only attended one Tribunal hearing. It was, to me, akin to a 'murder trial' being conducted out of the Old Bailey.
What should have happened didn't. The Presenting Officer for the DWP was an overweight officious oaf who put me off my stride the first time I met him - he really had a dose of poor body hygiene - in a non PC way, he stunk!.
He decided that he was in charge and conducted himself, albeit through the chair, in such a manner that I was on trial for murder. He tried time after time to get me to admit that what I was saying was the truth but in a roundabout way giving the impression that I was stark raving bonkers. What annoyed me was that the judge allowed him to continue with his questioning of me.

SuzzieJ83

Apologies for not replying sooner, I somehow couldn't log back in so had to re-register again.


Thank you all for your replies, they have been really helpful.


I have seen my GP and she is doing me a letter to send to the tribunal people, quite a detailed one and I shall be posting it off today so it should reach them in time.


In the letter it will also say that attending could cause me more harm and is not recommended.


This is all I can do. Like Densol said, I think I would rather lose that find myself back in A&E after the stress, the money PIP brings is just not worth the hassle.


I shall try and keep you posted of any result.

tyler2027

photocopy that letter! just to ensure you have a copy for your own records - its evidence of your limitations for any future review. Also, keep backup in case of lost post......easier to send another copy than ask and wait for the GP to send it to you again.

Proxima_Centauri

Alice_Holt wrote: »

Totally agree with Tyler2027 "often the DWP does not send a representative, there is no prosecutor, it is not a criminal court. They are not the ones who are questioning the claimant."

Many years ago my OH had to go to one of these tribunals, and the DWP didn't even show their face!

His benefits were reinstated and back pay to the value of hundreds of pounds was awarded him.

What a waste of everybody's time and money :mad:

rockingbilly

Proxima_Centauri wrote: »

Many years ago my OH had to go to one of these tribunals, and the DWP didn't even show their face!

His benefits were reinstated and back pay to the value of hundreds of pounds was awarded him.

What a waste of everybody's time and money :mad:

That is what has happened. In future it is likely that they will be there at best or at worst will have picked holes in your claim and evidence to create doubt.

densol_2

rockingbilly wrote: »

That is what has happened. In future it is likely that they will be there at best or at worst will have picked holes in your claim and evidence to create doubt.

No no no - it doesnt work like that. As you have been told before this is not an adversarial criminal hearing. The DWP DO NOT have rights of audience. They are "presenting" officers. When they prepare their pack in response that is where they present their arguments. They may attend ( but often dont ) to present their case. They are not Rumpole of the Bailey ! Its for the 3 Tribunal judges to pose questions and consider the evidence.

Alice_Holt

densol wrote: »

No no no - it doesnt work like that. As you have been told before this is not an adversarial criminal hearing. The DWP DO NOT have rights of audience. They are "presenting" officers. When they prepare their pack in response that is where they present their arguments. They may attend ( but often dont ) to present their case. They are not Rumpole of the Bailey ! Its for the 3 Tribunal judges to pose questions and consider the evidence.

Quite. I fear that rockingbilly by overstating the role of DWP presenting officers could dissuade forumites from appearing in person at their tribunal, thus reducing the chances of a successful outcome.

rockingbilly

Alice_Holt wrote: »

Quite. I fear that rockingbilly by overstating the role of DWP presenting officers could dissuade forumites from appearing in person at their tribunal, thus reducing the chances of a successful outcome.

I'm not suggesting that at all. I know what I went through the last time I had a Tribunal.
I remember one question that I was asked 'who completed the claim form - it does not help us understand anything'
I didn't know what to say.
It was actually completed by an advocacy service for older people and the lady in question that completed it was sat next to me at the Tribunal and said nothing all the way through. To avoid embarrassing her I told the Judge that is was me and didn't understand the form.
I got slated from the Judge about that. He ended up saying that I was nor a credible witness
And it's because of my experience I will not be going to another if they fail my transfer from DLA to PIP. Everybody else can choose what they want to do.

MoneyAdvice

I have my hearing at the end of April. I too completed the original PIP form incorrectly and I will probably get slated about it, too. My support worker will hopefully be able to explain that I don't always understand these forms properly and that I completed it without his involvement (I didn't have a support worker at that time).

I'm hoping that when my diagnoses of autism comes through, it will be enough evidence as it'll show the difficulties I have.

Good luck with your appeal.