Tribunal & Legal Challenges - Flawed PIP Assessment

Hi LL26

Thanks for replying but sadly a post of mine seems to have gone missing. I'm going to try and re-post it now. But I think I've identified a huge conflict of interest with the judge at my hearing!

Hi peeps,

Lots of things to say but firstly I really would like some advice regarding independence of the judge at my tribunal hearing.

Obviously the panel members are all meant to be independent of the DWP. However, I have literally just discovered that the judge on my panel is the Head of Legal Services at my local city council (which I will not name), where I obviously live.

How on earth can this full time role in local government not be a conflict of interest in his second role as a social security tribunal panel judge?

This explains to me why he was so obsessed with asking why I hadn't applied for other benefits and why he was so concerned about them/my finances. He and all the panel seemed to have the attitude that I was 'taking money from him/them personally' and I guess in a way I am, if he's head of legal services at my local city council?!

Also it affirms to me that he is clearly biased against claimants due to his full time job in local government and he probably knows the DWP rep who attended and any other people there in an official capacity, due to his role as Head of Legal Services at the local city council. How can he NOT know any of the other DWP reps in fact, would be my question. My city is not a big one at all.

Has anyone ever come across this before in a Tribunal panel? Is it normal? It doesn't sit right with me at all.

I was considering making a complaint to the judicial commission about the panel before I discovered this, but I'm now considering adding this bizarre fact to my complaint, with the question of whether he should even be sitting on Tribunal panels. Judges/solicitors/barristers need to be independent, honest, impartial as part of their code of conduct, and declare any conflicts of interest.

Also - before I just discovered the above - I called up HMCTS to ask when I could expect to receive the WSoR and they clarified that it could well take months and it depends on when the judge - Mr Head of Legal Services - has the time to write them up. I find this ridiculous as I can't see why the panel can't or don't write a WSoR on the day they make their decision. It explains why it could take months to receive it as well. He probably needs plenty of time to figure out what lies reasons to write for the refusal.

On the plus side I'm growing more convinced that I'll easily find points of law to argue for a set aside, I have been looking at appeal judge decisions and have discovered that Tribunals need to explain clearly their reasons for refusal - they obviously have not just in the refusal letter I've got -, these reasons need to be in response to any arguments I've made in my claim and not just 'we think this and that's the end of it', and if they write any observations or reasons in their statement of reasons, that these need to be put to me so I can address them, before they write them down.

Well obviously nobody addressed the 'help seeking behaviour' with me, as I have no idea what it refers to. And nobody said they were concerned I hadn't been given stronger medication, either. So they 'failed to probe or enquire' on the medication point sufficiently enough as well, which I believe is another error of law. Therefore they shouldn't be putting either of these down as reasons for refusal if they're a 'fair, just and independent panel'. That's my understanding so far anyway. I know I need to wait for the WSoR but if that attempts to explain either of these idiot things they've written on the rejection letter, they're on a losing streak in my opinion.

I'm bristling at all this.

Is it worth me contacting HMCTS to alert them to this guy's full time role as a likely conflict of interest/lack of independence with his chairing the Tribunal panel? And asking if they can set aside purely on that basis, before I get the WSoR? I see no point in waiting for him to write any WSoR or consider any appeal I make now I know he works full time, in house for local government in their most significant legal role.

Also I will add, he has not declared that he works in this role for the local council on his professional services page/profile.

I had to do some digging to discover that this was his role. The information is publicly available but I doubt he knows it is, if that makes sense. It has been posted in response to an FOI request and not by him.

I therefore strongly suspect that he has not told HMCTS that he works in a full time capacity as Head of Legal Services for the city council (in the same location where he's overseeing social security Tribunal panels).

Sorry to come to you guys with this, I know I'm going overboard but this seems so off to me.

Hi Gordon

Many thanks for your reply. I understand your point and I realise he will have had to know me personally to excuse himself from proceedings. I won't do anything then. It's probably worth explaining my logic though, which is as follows:

1. Legal member works in house/FT as Head of Legal Dept for local authority. Therefore his full time role and ultimate loyalty is to his client and to defend his client's interests, i.e. the local authority and not the general public. His full time role means it is highly likely that he will have had direct or indirect dealings with the DWP and they will have engaged him/his department in social security claims/universal credit claims and likely investigating claimants and rejecting benefits claims.

2. Legal member works PT as social security Tribunal panel member. His part time role and responsibility is to the court and to vulnerable members of the general public. He is allegedly independent of the DWP and must not only act independently, he must be seen to be acting independently. Being independent is a crucial principle, as well as having no conflicting interests.

How can he be independent if he works full time as the head of a local government department which must have regular dealings with the DWP (another government department) and also dealing with investigating vulnerable claimants/rejecting their social security claims? He may well be used to viewing or treating claimants in a negative/judgemental manner, due to these prior professional dealings with the DWP.

How can he demonstrate he has no conflict of interest/conflicting loyalty between the defence of the local authority/government/central government and acting solely in the best interests of vulnerable claimants?

As I said I agree with you that he would have to know me personally to not sit on the panel. I won't do anything re the above and will wait for the WSoR whenever that may arrive. However I'm shocked that this is acceptable. Local claimants like myself (there must be many others) are likely being scrutinised by a biased panel, which is a waste of time on everyone's part, and a huge waste of money on the part of HMCTS.

Also I was proposing to claim bias/breach of natural justice on the following grounds:

1. Judge's full time role in local government showing lack of independence from government/DWP and conflict of interest.
2. Judge asking several irrelevant questions regarding other means tested benefits I had not applied for and about income - irrelevant to any PIP award/descriptors.
3. Judge allowing unseen evidence into the hearing by DWP and without stopping to ask me if I was ok to allow this - bear in mind I'm unrepresented and he knows that. This is a breach of the ECHR as well as breach of justice in general.
4. Other panel members being openly rude/hostile. Some of this can be audio verified.
5. No break offered or reassurance/empathy shown by any panel member despite being in significant/clear distress throughout the 90 minute hearing. This will be audio verified.

I think the first 3 reasons are strongest. Thanks for listening/reading.