DLA refused based on old ATOS medical

I I do think it is worth referring to these guides, they are written by experts and in a great percentage of cases are useful to the claimant.


A tribunal would take note of these sources You have to try and not be beaten down by pessemism if you can.

Hey I can beat you on that time limit. DWP refused a claim from me based on an ATOS medical that was 13 months old and had also been the subject of a tribunal that I had won so was clearly invalid. They actually claimed the medical was done this year instead of last year and had the wrong year on it.....

Hi XFACTOR

The judge that handled my IB appeal, which is now at the Upper Tribunal, didn't even bother reading the appeal papers let alone take note of additional sources. The only thing he knew about me was my name. He had to ask me about everything else including my date of birth (which is in the appeal papers), and whether I have a driving licence (which admittedly is not in the appeal papers but had no relevance whatsoever to the appeal).

I was only being half serious in my previous post. It's annoying being given six months and then finding that the guidance is two to five years.

I see nothing wrong with placing extracts of DWP guidance in front of the tribunal to illustrate contradictions in the DWP's evidence. But I think you can only hope that the tribunal will take note of them (or even read what you have written), as they are not legally binding and a tribunal can choose to ignore them.

Regards

Derek

DepressedDerek wrote:

Hi XFACTOR

The judge that handled my IB appeal, which is now at the Upper Tribunal, didn't even bother reading the appeal papers let alone take note of additional sources. The only thing he knew about me was my name. He had to ask me about everything else including my date of birth (which is in the appeal papers), and whether I have a driving licence (which admittedly is not in the appeal papers but had no relevance whatsoever to the appeal).

I was only being half serious in my previous post. It's annoying being given six months and then finding that the guidance is two to five years.

I see nothing wrong with placing extracts of DWP guidance in front of the tribunal to illustrate contradictions in the DWP's evidence. But I think you can only hope that the tribunal will take note of them (or even read what you have written), as they are not legally binding and a tribunal can choose to ignore them.

Regards

Derek

the relevance of the driving licence is that in some cases, people have certain problems that should be reported to DVLC and driving stopped... see below




www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/DriverLice...MedicalA-Z/index.htm

if you have certain problems and are still driving they would like to know why?

I sympathise with your negative appeal experiences. Many years ago I took my own case (for a few weeks dole money ! through a tribunal, then a Commissioner, back to tribunal, then a Commissioner again, before getting the result I felt justified. Oddly enough the health concern in my case is now statute law in public places and workplaces in the entire UK, but back then my concern wasntg enough to prevent the Adjudication Officer punishing me with suspension of benefit

I remember only to well my own appeal experiences over the years, and representing other people. There are some tribunal chairpersons you get to realise are (this sounds a little absurd but it is an 'impression' that an advocate gets) are pro department, and others, less so, perhaps feeling a compassion towards the stressed and often impoverished before them and wanting to find a legally sustainable way to interpret the rules in their favour. One I remember that a colleague described as the 'smiling assassin' He was always genial and warm on the surface, but one's client rarely won

But despite all that one carries on, ever hopeful that arguments and evidence prevail

The best anyone can ever do as a claimant is

a) learn some basics about the criteria for the benefit sought or in receipt
b) Take plenty of time to describe your situation accurately in claims forms, using an advisor if you have problems explaining things.
c) Seek advice from an independent local advice agency (and be wary of solicitors who lack the appropriate experience) welfare benefits is a specialist area that requires not only legal ability but tactical skills as well
and when a advisor/agency is respected just their involvement can improve the prospects of success
d) Keep copies of everything and certificates of posting
e) always in disability related benefits be sure of your GP, that they are empathatic to your predicament, and if they are not change GP until you find one that is. When you are sure of
your GP make sure they know your problems and limitations and when you need them to help don;t hesitate to ask
for supporting letters, not too often, but when circumstances suggest it might help

Above all just tell it like it is. It is the best policy

Hi Dave

Thanks for that link, which made fascinating reading.

Social security appeal tribunals have nothing to do with the DVLA; I think it's unlikely that there is much communication between the two organizations. In fact, even if evidence came to light at a hearing suggesting that the appellant committed a crime or benefit fraud that's not relevant to the particular appeal, I don't think the tribunal has the power to take action, or would necessary inform the relevant authority. I think it would be up to the DWP representative to inform the relevant department of any suspected fraud, although I'm open to correction on those two statements.

I disagree with the statement on the website you linked to that states Alcohol problems are conditions that you need to tell the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) about. It may be a criminal offence to drink and drive. I know it is not an offence to drink and not drive. They appear to be suggesting that it is an offence to have an alcohol problem, possess a driving licence and not inform the DVLA about it, regardless of whether you are drinking, driving, both or neither!

Regards

Derek