PIP Upper Tribunal / Statement of Reasons

Fuzzy_Pear

I am in receipt of my Statement of Reasons for my PIP Tribunal, I was not awarded enough points to be awarded any PIP.

I was curious as I couldn't really absorb what was being said during the tribunal summing up, which is why I requested the SOR.

I am aware I can only appeal to an Upper Tribunal if there was an error in law, but how do I determine this, for instance which law do I look at? Please do not tell me to seek legal advice, because where I live it is none existent, I have tried and everyone seems to be way booked in advance!

After reading the SOR, I am shocked and flabbergasted that there seems to have been so many assumptions made on the day of my tribunal and about my attendance.

From what time I arrived (I signed at visitors book, so there is an accurate time which they have failed to use) but they make reference they do not know what time I arrived so therefore cannot make a guess whether I experienced physiological distress because they do not know how long I sat and waited in the waiting room - for the record I arrive some 30 minutes before my assessment so I could reduce my anxiety in the waiting room.

The notes around the mobility have me even more angered, apparently what I say about some walking I do, is inaccurate because NO-ONE would want to sit on a cold park bench for 10-15 minutes in winter? What? Seriously? Why not?

They have made an error on reference to the letter my GP sent, by using the wrong name / sex of the GP who wrote the letter (I thought these judges were professionals?)

I was asked about bathing and was honest, but at no point was I asked questions about how I dried my feet, they make the assumption I bend down to dry my feet, and this is NOT the case.

The one that has been most upsetting is Activity 9 - Engaging with other people face to face. They admit I was anxious, but no more than anyone else. Apparently they assume it was a good day, I was a quickening wreck in the room, I was handed a box of tissues because I couldn't stop crying!

It is clear to me and even them that my mental health took a downward spiral after my assessment, although it is always fragile, so they didn't take into account anything that happened after the end date of my DLA, and they assume I do not meet the 3-month qualifying period as my condition fluctuates. Again incorrect, I gave examples of bad days, low points etc. I clearly also said every day is difficult as my moods changed daily, my personality disorder does not go away, it's an ingrained part of everyday life, that sometimes I beat and cope with, other days it beats me and I do not cope.

I am so angry, I feel personally just writing to the judge to point out what is wrong with her SOR and asking them if they were totally blindfolded on the day of my tribunal.

Bananas123

hello,

it means, they have to have made errors in the tribunal process etc

times, and anecdotes, are not law etc, the time of the commencing of the tribunal, is a "numerical anecdote referring to time" (NOT law...) peoples details are not law....

---

basically, things like:

t is clear to me and even them that my mental health took a downward spiral after my assessment

is personal statement, as they could (and it would be a reasonable argument):

"the claimant doesn't have to go to tribunals regulary"

so even if it did cause distress ? so? it's not like you are required to goto tribunals every day ?

(therefore, and again reasonably, you would assume you would not be as stressed USUALLY (a.k.a. most of the time....)

(not law)

---

you need to focus on law............. it's !!!!take complex, i had a look but gave up (you need to be / or know someone with atleast graduate level law training OR a random someone who has worked alongside them.

(i.e. people at citizens advice, may not even be specilist enough i don't think (????)).

---

if i were you, i would atleast ask a citizens advice person if they think there was an error, although i didn't find one etc

(don't mean to be the bearer of bad news).

---

i asked the same thing (kind of):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5629423

(i only realised, when i got home, that they hadn't bothered reading the documents... relied on oral evidence only... but it was my mistake to make the assumption (and missed my opportunity)

(i.e. i believe i should have been placed in the support group, but messed up my tribunal (because they were cutting corners....))

...but the onus is on us to "do a better job", i think "errors of law" don't really come up that often and to find them, need to be specialised in law.

regards

Alice_Holt

Procedure here:
https://www.gov.uk/administrative-appeals-tribunal/overview

Background and Error of Law
There is only one ground of appeal to the UT, which is that the FTT made an 'error of law'. This term covers a wider range of errors than many people first imagine. The FTT's statement of reasons must show that it:
applied the law correctly
made correct factual findings
gave adequate reasons for its decision
made the decision in the correct way
obeyed the rules of natural justice

A failure to do any of these can constitute an error of law.

Much case law, from both the UT and the higher courts, concerns errors of law in FTT decisions, including the following:
I. applying the wrong law – for example where the FTT used the wrong legislation, misunderstood the legislation or overlooked relevant case law.
II. making incorrect factual findings – To make a decision the FTT must decide what the facts are and not take into account irrelevant facts.
III. giving inadequate reasons – The FTT must explain its decision: it must explain how the evidence established the facts and why the facts made it apply the law in the way it did.
IV. making a decision that is not supported by the evidence – for example where the FTT ignored or overlooked evidence, misinterpreted evidence, took into account irrelevant evidence or made a decision that does follow logically from the evidence.
V. making a decision that is ‘perverse’ – where the FTT acted irrationally and in a way that no reasonable FTT, given the relevant law and the evidence before it and the findings of fact, could have come to the decision that it did.
VI. breach of ‘the rules natural justice – This includes failing to follow FTT procedure, for example failing to give parties 14 days’ notice of an oral appeal hearing or failing to inform parties that it intends to take into account a matter not addressed in the appeal papers or during the hearing. It also includes failure to follow the procedural rules for all judicial process, for example bias or not allowing a party to speak.

I have highlighted the most likely errors of law.
So it might be that the first tier tribunal failed to give adequate reasons as to why it preferred one set of evidence to another. For instance, if you had written evidence from your GP (or verbal evidence from yourself), but the tribunal preferred the DWP evidence without fully explaining why.

I have been told that if you do appeal to the Upper Tribunal, then the UT will carefully scrutinise the FTT decision and may identify an error of law you have not.

Alice_Holt

You may wish to try to get help from CAB / Law Centre with this.
http://www.lawcentres.org.uk/lcn-s-work/welfare-benefits-upper-tribunal-service

As above post - things to look for in the S of R:
Did the tribunal prefer one set of evidence to other another without fully explaining why?
Was there a breach of natural justice because you were unable to fully explain yourself due to you feeling intimidated?
Was the hearing conducted fairly?

Generally the first level tribunal will refuse a set-aside request (they make the decision in the first instance) , but you can go on to ask the Upper Tribunal to consider a set-aside request and they will make the final decision as to whether the first level tribunal decision stands or can be set aside.

Bananas123

what happens if the claimant "just did a rubbish job at tribunal" (like me) though please ?

---

if claimants are giving oral evidence counter to discriptors, then the judges rule with the evidence before them ? (i.e. claimant didn't submit evidence properly AND had opportunity to say these things at tribunal... but didn't)

then how is it an "error of law" ? (i don't understand ?)

---

it to me sounds, more so like "wanting another go at tribunal" ?

am i incorrect with this assumption ?

THANKS!

Fuzzy_Pear

Alice_Holt wrote: »

You may wish to try to get help from CAB / Law Centre with this.

As above post - things to look for in the S of R:
Did the tribunal prefer one set of evidence to other another without fully explaining why?
Was there a breach of natural justice because you were unable to fully explain yourself due to you feeling intimidated?
Was the hearing conducted fairly?

Generally the first level tribunal will refuse a set-aside request (they make the decision in the first instance) , but you can go on to ask the Upper Tribunal to consider a set-aside request and they will make the final decision as to whether the first level tribunal decision stands or can be set aside.

Thanks for your reply. I'll have to go over the SOR again. I did feel intimidated, no doubt about that, being there on my own, with three of the tribunal panel, a DWP rep sat close to me and the clerk typing. I was an emotional wreck.

HB58

Fuzzy Pear, as this relates to a PIP claim, you can reapply immediately if you wish.

Even if you are granted permission to go to UTT, it could take months to be sorted.

Fuzzy_Pear

HB58 wrote: »

Fuzzy Pear, as this relates to a PIP claim, you can reapply immediately if you wish.

Even if you are granted permission to go to UTT, it could take months to be sorted.

I was aware, but not had the mental strength to re-apply again to be honest!

ChrisDA95

Whilst I went through the same experience with the same descriptor, my honest opinion is that few, if any, of your reasons for wanting to appeal to the upper tribunal will be considered as an "error of law". You need to remember that with PIP, the ONUS IS ON YOU to provide evidence to back up your statements, otherwise anybody could come up with a sob story to get PIP awards. My afice is to go to your nearest CAB, or you could just re-apply for instead.

rockingbilly

Fuzzy_Pear wrote: »

I was aware, but not had the mental strength to re-apply again to be honest!

Having been through what you have it is of no surprise that you don't want to go through it again - fully understandable..

Even if you do there is the real chance that the DWP will when looking at the second claim refer to the previous claim, assessors report and SOR from the Tribunal.

For just a few hours of your time I would suggest that you go and see someone at the CAB or similar and talk through your situation.