some questiosn regarding appeals

damino

so, if I have this right, as to the Why of why it was that pre 2013 (whether represented by a solicitor or not), the DWP would often drop cases before going to an appeal tribunal. Whereas after 2013, they'd not drop them, is because people were going to appeal before mandatory reconsideration, which meant that they weren't encouraged to send in new evidence..whereas now they often don't have new evidence prior to appeal.

However,the following is a bit strange.

The thing is that when I did my appeal in the case of DLA pre 2013, I did the reconsideration.. before going to appeal. And I didn't add any new evidence prior to the appeal tribunal, apart from the letter from my solicitor which pointed to the evidence I had already submitted, that was in the request for an appeal.

So do you think I was in the very rare category?


i.e. they're saying that nowadays since people don't tend to send new evidence with an appeal, and since they have to do a reconsideration, it's very rare for DWP to drop it. Though in my case pre 2013, I matched both those criteria and they still dropped it. So would that have been extremely rare? btw the solicitor at the time was not surprised at all. So i'm not sure how this welfare reform would explain the difference as it relates to my pre 2013 case.

bspm

damino wrote: »

so, if I have this right, as to the Why of why it was that pre 2013 (whether represented by a solicitor or not), the DWP would often drop cases before going to an appeal tribunal. Whereas after 2013, they'd not drop them, is because people were going to appeal before mandatory reconsideration, which meant that they weren't encouraged to send in new evidence..whereas now they often don't have new evidence prior to appeal.

However,the following is a bit strange.

The thing is that when I did my appeal in the case of DLA pre 2013, I did the reconsideration.. before going to appeal. And I didn't add any new evidence prior to the appeal tribunal, apart from the letter from my solicitor which pointed to the evidence I had already submitted, that was in the request for an appeal.

So do you think I was in the very rare category?


i.e. they're saying that nowadays since people don't tend to send new evidence with an appeal, and since they have to do a reconsideration, it's very rare for DWP to drop it. Though in my case pre 2013, I matched both those criteria and they still dropped it. So would that have been extremely rare? btw the solicitor at the time was not surprised at all. So i'm not sure how this welfare reform would explain the difference as it relates to my pre 2013 case.

The DWP did do reconsideration pre 28 October 2013 However, they were not mandatory at that time, but a request for an appeal was always reconsidered by a more senior decision maker, before passing it to the Tribunals Service for an appeal, except where reconsideration resulted in an award more favourable to the claimant.

So, no, you weren't treated any differently, DLA is very different to PIP in the descriptors used.

damino

bspm wrote: »

The DWP did do reconsideration pre 28 October 2013 However, they were not mandatory at that time, but a request for an appeal was always reconsidered by a more senior decision maker, before passing it to the Tribunals Service for an appeal, except where reconsideration resulted in an award more favourable to the claimant.

So, no, you weren't treated any differently, DLA is very different to PIP in the descriptors used.

yes I understand that before, the reconsideration wasn't mandatory and now it is.

People are "treated differently"(whatever you mean by that), pre and post the welfare reforms act. And the administrator at the solicitor I spoke to has said that there is a difference in that now they are more likely to go to appeal, than in the past. And somebody else has said that's professional advice right there, so they agree there is a difference in treatment there. And that is the difference in treatment that I am referring to. (though I didn't use the term "difference in treatment", i'm just using your words there, as i'm replying to your post).

But anyhow, was your post a reply to my post #32 (the post immediately before yours)?

glossgal

I really don't think it matters 'what happened before' or 'what happens now' in terms of process (although there is more than enough clarification provided in this thread about these things)-the bottom line is how strong is a persons case, can they provide evidence, is their current award at risk and can they stand before a panel of 3 people in a tribunal/court and answer questions in a consistent and credible manner. These are the relevant elements in an appeal. OP I know you said you don't want to go into details about your particular case but if you are seeking reassurance that making an appeal will have no risks whatsoever and will end in success because it did before then frankly nobody can do that

bspm

damino wrote: »

yes I understand that before, the reconsideration wasn't mandatory and now it is.

People are "treated differently"(whatever you mean by that), pre and post the welfare reforms act. And the administrator at the solicitor I spoke to has said that there is a difference in that now they are more likely to go to appeal, than in the past. And somebody else has said that's professional advice right there, so they agree there is a difference in treatment there. And that is the difference in treatment that I am referring to. (though I didn't use the term "difference in treatment", i'm just using your words there, as i'm replying to your post).

But anyhow, was your post a reply to my post #32 (the post immediately before yours)?

You asked
So do you think I was in the very rare category?

I answered no you weren't treated any differently, maybe I should have said no, you were not in a very rare category you were treated the same as everyone else (No Different)

I am sorry but I do think you are just typing utter rubbish now and I will not answer you again, no matter what answer is given you try to make gobbledegook of it.

Enjoy trying to wind someone else up.

Alice_Holt

bspm wrote: »

........no matter what answer is given you try to make gobbledegook of it......

Yes, I'm very puzzled by the OP's insistence on returning to an unimportant aspect of appeal procedures which has been explained several times in the thread.

I have given the OP the benefit of doubt, and tried to provide sensible (and detailed) advice, but still (as Glossgal says) the OP shows no indication of addressing any of the relevant elements.

If it is a "wind-up" , then the OP has wasted the time of everyone who has taken the trouble to give him advice.

If the OP is genuinely confused and unable to understand what a PIP appeal entails, (nor comprehend the risks), then my final message to damino is - don't appeal without the support of a benefits specialist.

damino

bspm wrote: »

You asked
So do you think I was in the very rare category?

I answered no you weren't treated any differently, maybe I should have said no, you were not in a very rare category you were treated the same as everyone else (No Different)

I am sorry but I do think you are just typing utter rubbish now and I will not answer you again, no matter what answer is given you try to make gobbledegook of it.

Enjoy trying to wind someone else up.

You just aren't understanding what i'm asking and instead of asking for clarification you're just misinterpreting me.

Straight after I wrote that about very rare category, I wrote "i.e." and I explained exactly what I meant. I was clearly not asking if I was treated differently. That's just your words.

Ultimately with my DLA claim the DWP didn't want to go to a tribunal.. Whereas the admin at the solicitors I spoke to said that nowadays it's unusual for them not to. If it were the case as some here have suggested, that it's the same situation, then the admin at the solicitors would've said then and now makes no difference, but they did not.

poppy12345

damino wrote: »

You just aren't understanding what i'm asking and instead of asking for clarification you're just misinterpreting me.

You have been given so much advice by a lot of people. I agree with Alice and BSPM you are making gobbledegook out of everything. I/m not sure how anyone can possibly help you further, try your local CAB.

Tommo1980

You're obviously a fraggle so kindly hop along and let the good people of this board get back to giving advice to those in genuine need of help.

NYM

It's apparent from the previous posts the OP has made, he has issues.
He appears to be a detail oriented person and will over focus or obsess on the minor points.

It might be wise just to answer the initial question if you can and then allow the thread to drop off the first page.