Tribunal on Tuesday

Any help would be great.

I am going through the appeal papers for my sons tribunal on Tuesday and I have found a few things I would like the tribunal to consider, I'm just not too sure how word it.

Firstly in the papers there is a transcript from a phone call between DWP and school senco, in it the questions are - can he manage to walk around school etc. Senco says - he doesnt have a problem with walking just has to be careful with running and jumping. questions then go on to ask - if he can get around the school and playground ok, senco says yes he can he has no problems now. Then question asks could he walk around the school block for example. Senco says oh yes he could manage that with no problem. I want to establish that these answers were totally inaccurate by the senco and that we then had a meeting with the school head re this transcript. He has now written a more detailed report that is the complete opposite of what the senco said. It is worth noting that the decision to turn my son down for DLA was made on the same day as the phone conversation with the senco.

In the papers it says that the reason for the decision is taken from the conversation with the senco and a school report in which his teacher said there were no problems and that he no longer uses his wheelchair - again totally untrue..

It also says in the submission that having taken into account the distance, speed and manner and time that my son can walk out of doors without severe discomfort the decision is that his walking is not so limited that he can be accepted as virtually unable to walk. My son has not had a medical and there is no evidence to back up this statement. The DWP have no idea of the distance, speed etc that my son can walk, therefore are they entitled to make the assumption that he can walk ok etc? Can I also challenge them on the question about whether he can walka round the school block, considering that he has never done this, therefore the senco would not know if he is capable of this or not and also the DWP have no idea of the size of the school block. Can I challenge them on this line of questioning?

On the subject of supervision, he needs constant supervision out doors to limit is activity to avoid damage to the hip. They have come back with the answer that he has had the condition long enough to be aware of the impact of over exertion. The fact is he is only 10 (9 when the decision was made). Can I argue that he is just too young and lacks the maturity to be able to self limit?

They have said that I should limit his fluid intake to prevent any need to get up during the night to go to the toilet. Can I argue that it is unreasonable to limit his fluid intake in order that the state can refuse care element?

They have stated in the submission that they aknowledge that my son suffers great pain with walking and needs to stop and rest frequently and at times needs to use a wheelchair (all their words) they have also said, it is accepted that my son has some difficulties getting around and it is considered that actions involving impact on his joints would be detrimantal to his condition, however walking on level ground would not impact to such an extent. Can I argue that even walking on level ground has an impact on the pain that he suffers. Can I also ask how they have come to the conclusion that it is not painful for him to walk on level ground? In fact I feel that they have contradicted themselves in the submission by admitting that he suffers great pain with walking then refusing to grant him higher mobility.

I am very nervous about the tribunal on Tuesday and I have no representation, so any help would be great.

Thanks

Hi Trina

God bless you, its obvious you have an awful lot on your plate just now and it seems with little support. How can you with hold fluid from a child who is thirsty? Surely tht is a "human righ" i can understand maybe reducing it a little before bedtme but surely the child wont sleep if he is thirsty!!!!

I dont know how these things work but is there any posibility of you taking your son to the tribunal and let them see for themselves how he is and how his mobility is affecting him, also let them observe how much pain he is in. I dont know if its allowed to take a minor with you, but it seems that your son is the most important evidence in your case. Could one of the moderators please just confirm if a minor is or isnt allowed to attend?!!!!

As for the new report you have from the school that would be well worth presenting on the day and anything else that would be in your sons favour. The clerk will ask you on arrival if you have anything else that you would like the tribunal to take into consideration. I will be thinking about you and wish you all the very best for tuesday. Please let us know how you get on.

Kind wishes
Mm :)a smile costs nothing

Hi Trina

It sounds like you have valid arguments. You are fully entitled to challenge the DWP's evidence wherever you disagree and put forward your own arguments, as you have mentioned.

I should point out that the more detailed report that the school head wrote must be based around the time of the decision and be in front of the tribunal. If it is not in the appeal papers you will need to take a copy with you if you want them to consider it.

The tribunal has to make decisions that are supported by evidence, so if the DWP has made assumptions about how far your son can walk, I think it is important that you point it out and provide your own evidence. Please don't forget that the oral evidence you give at the hearing is just as important, if not more, as any evidence on paper.

Can I argue that it is unreasonable to limit his fluid intake in order that the state can refuse care element?

I would advise you to drop the second part of that argument, the tribunal will only be concerned with whether it is reasonable to limit his fluid intake (it goes without saying that it's to refuse his care element). Limiting his fluid intake does sound quite ambiguous with regards to the level of limitation, as Millymoo just suggested, what do you do if he's thirsty? It strikes me that the DWP are just guessing that this (cruel) strategy would work, there is no evidence to confirm it.

If you are feeling nervous about the hearing it may help if you make a note of all the points you would like to raise to ensure that nothing is left out, but all your arguments do seem very valid.

Best of luck at the hearing, let us know how you got on.

Derek

Hi Derek

Do you know if it would be allowed for Trina to take her son to the tribunal so the panel can assess this for themselves. I appreciate its not ideal, but just thinking back to my own experience with the tribunal, i was treated with the upmost respect and it was a calm setting, or was i lucky?

Mm a smile costs nothing

Thanks Derek, the detailed report from the head is from the time that the claim was refused, and it is in the court papers. From reading the time line in the Secretary of State submission I can see that the decision to refuse the claim was taken a few days after the initial school report and on the same day as the senco telephone conversation. So it is obvious that they seem to be relying on this inaccurate evidence to turn down the claim. The fact that I have a report from the head that turns those two pieces of evidence on their head, I hope will clarify the situation to the tribunal.

Millymoo, thanks for your words of encouragement. I have asked the clerk to the tribunal if it is a requirement to take my son to the tribunal and she said that it is advised against as he is so young and he may become distressed as we are after all discussing private things regarding him. I feel fairly confident that I will be able to convey to the tribunal the level of pain that he suffers.

Thanks again for the help and encouragement. I will let you know how we get on on Tuesday.