Going ahead with tribunal or waiting for new form?

After writing to my TS with a few questions, they never answered how long the current waiting time is for an ESA hearing so I'm assuming it's still 10-14 weeks from the end of April (this week is week 10). I gave them a timeline to prove I hadn't been able to submit my grounds/further evidence thus far, so they made my appeal as NOT LISTABLE for 2 weeks which I'm assuming means my appeal can't be seen in order to be called for a hearing? This is fantastic news, although it's meant I HAVE to get everything together before next Friday!

I've read your ESA appeal guide and the date-relevant ESA50 guide. In there, and in guides from another organisation, I've read that in my grounds/submission I have to refute incorrect facts and assumptions; opinions given as facts; refer to examples (page numbers) of previous evidence supporting my belief that I did meet the SG descriptors etc, ie LOTS of detail!. My advisor provided a less than 2-page document with almost none of the above, only writing generally that I meet certain SG descriptors, and not including (despite me asking previously) Reg 29 which applies to me. So I've realised it's up to me to do it properly...and do it before next Friday!???! I REALLY don't want to waste unnecessary energy hence why I'm checking on here what exactly I have to do - am I correct in thinking:

1) I have to refute incorrect facts and assumptions; opinions given as facts; refer to examples (page numbers) of previous evidence supporting my belief that I did meet the SG descriptors, ie it really does need to be detailed?
2) I'm already in WRAG so should I also challenge incorrect things in relation to WRAG descriptors too? Even though this would make for a longer document, surely the answer is yes because if I don't challenge false things the TS panel will assume I agree with these 'facts', that they are true?
3) I don't have a representative and I'm too ill to defend my case in person but I'm going to try go to the oral hearing so they can see I'm not lying, how ill I am. This is also why I want everything to be in writing beforehand so that I don't have to say it in person because I simply won't be able to.
4) Does the TS read my bundle in the days/weeks BEFOREHAND or only ON THE DAY before the hearing?

Any help would be SO appreciated! Thanks!

grace wrote: After writing to my TS with a few questions, they never answered how long the current waiting time is for an ESA hearing so I'm assuming it's still 10-14 weeks from the end of April (this week is week 10). I gave them a timeline to prove I hadn't been able to submit my grounds/further evidence thus far, so they made my appeal as NOT LISTABLE for 2 weeks which I'm assuming means my appeal can't be seen in order to be called for a hearing? This is fantastic news, although it's meant I HAVE to get everything together before next Friday!

I've read your ESA appeal guide and the date-relevant ESA50 guide. In there, and in guides from another organisation, I've read that in my grounds/submission I have to refute incorrect facts and assumptions; opinions given as facts; refer to examples (page numbers) of previous evidence supporting my belief that I did meet the SG descriptors etc, ie LOTS of detail!. My advisor provided a less than 2-page document with almost none of the above, only writing generally that I meet certain SG descriptors, and not including (despite me asking previously) Reg 29 which applies to me. So I've realised it's up to me to do it properly...and do it before next Friday!???! I REALLY don't want to waste unnecessary energy hence why I'm checking on here what exactly I have to do - am I correct in thinking:

1) I have to refute incorrect facts and assumptions; opinions given as facts; refer to examples (page numbers) of previous evidence supporting my belief that I did meet the SG descriptors, ie it really does need to be detailed?
2) I'm already in WRAG so should I also challenge incorrect things in relation to WRAG descriptors too? Even though this would make for a longer document, surely the answer is yes because if I don't challenge false things the TS panel will assume I agree with these 'facts', that they are true?
3) I don't have a representative and I'm too ill to defend my case in person but I'm going to try go to the oral hearing so they can see I'm not lying, how ill I am. This is also why I want everything to be in writing beforehand so that I don't have to say it in person because I simply won't be able to.
4) Does the TS read my bundle in the days/weeks BEFOREHAND or only ON THE DAY before the hearing?

Any help would be SO appreciated! Thanks!

Hi g,

1. Although it will invariably help to refute incorrect facts, the important issue is to also prove that you fulfill at least one of The SG Descriptors, and/or that you qualify under ESA Reg 35.

As it seems from your earlier posts that the adverse decision would have been made on the pre 28/01/13 descriptors, you would have to show that you fulfilled at least one of these :

”Old” 2011 ESA SG (LCWRA) Schedule 3 Descriptors

And/Or under :

ESA Reg 35 for entry to The SG (LCWRA)

ESA Reg 29 only gives access to The WRAG, which you are already in, so is not really helpful.

Provide as much detail as is necessary whilst referring to documented evidence.

2. You should contest any errant information that is applicable to you correctly being placed into The SG, rather than incorrectly in The WRAG.

3. The general idea is to make it as easy as possible for the Tribunal to see that you should have been placed into The SG. Therefore, the more detailed and easily understandable your evidence is, the more chance that you have of success.

Number all pages and paragraphs in bundle, so that you can refer to them, and the panel can reference them quickly and easily. Provide an index.

4.The Panel should read through your bundle, at least the night before the hearing.

The 2 page document that your adviser has provided sounds more like a submission, whereas you are compiling an evidence bundle.

You can do your own submission document as well if you wish. This should ideally be no more than 2 pages. It should be more in the form of bullet points.

You can list the number of the SG activity/s under Schedule 3 that you feel you qualify under, and give reference to particular page and paragraph number in your bundle.

Therefore the actually submission is only giving details of which descriptors ESA legislation that you feel applies to your entry to The SG, whilst referring to particular parts of your bundle.

If you feel that ESA Reg 35 is relevant, then state this in your submission, then refer to evidence within the bundle to show how and why there would be "Substantial Risk" ( ESA Reg 35. (2) (b) ) if you were not placed into The SG.(not assessed as having LCWRA)

I hope this helps.

bro58

Bro58, that was HUGELY helpful - thanks so much! When my brain was in a healthier state it was very logical and organised, so I still have some of that fortunately...I'd already thought to do a lot of what you suggested. But it's so great to have the confirmation.

But just to double-check I understand you:
2) So to save my energy I can just challenge Atos/DWP info that is wrong in relation to SP descriptors? And leave factual errors etc that related to the WRAG?

3) When you said to number all pages/paragraphs, you were referring to the evidence bundle I'm going to have to now create?

By index, do you mean a contents list of all the documents I'm providing them when I post it off?

4) Doing my own "submission" seems to me to duplicate things and I don't want to irritate the panel before I'm in front of them. But because my advisor isn't keen on detail and won't refer to previous documented evidence by writing "see page...", it seems I'm going to have to write my own doing just that. But won't the panel think this strange?

I didn't quite understand you when you were referring to my own "submission", "You can list the number of the SG activity/s under Schedule 3 that you feel you qualify under (I understand this), and give reference to particular page and paragraph number (I understand this) in your bundle (the new "evidence bundle" I'm going to be providing, or the existing bundle I already have from the TS?)." Apologies if this is obvious and my foggy head is just getting in the way!

Thank you!

grace wrote: Bro58, that was HUGELY helpful - thanks so much! When my brain was in a healthier state it was very logical and organised, so I still have some of that fortunately...I'd already thought to do a lot of what you suggested. But it's so great to have the confirmation.

But just to double-check I understand you:
2) So to save my energy I can just challenge Atos/DWP info that is wrong in relation to SP descriptors? And leave factual errors etc that related to the WRAG?

3) When you said to number all pages/paragraphs, you were referring to the evidence bundle I'm going to have to now create?

By index, do you mean a contents list of all the documents I'm providing them when I post it off?

4) Doing my own "submission" seems to me to duplicate things and I don't want to irritate the panel before I'm in front of them. But because my advisor isn't keen on detail and won't refer to previous documented evidence by writing "see page...", it seems I'm going to have to write my own doing just that. But won't the panel think this strange?

I didn't quite understand you when you were referring to my own "submission", "You can list the number of the SG activity/s under Schedule 3 that you feel you qualify under (I understand this), and give reference to particular page and paragraph number (I understand this) in your bundle (the new "evidence bundle" I'm going to be providing, or the existing bundle I already have from the TS?)." Apologies if this is obvious and my foggy head is just getting in the way!

Thank you!

Hi g,

2. Yes, try and concentrate on showing how and why you should have been placed into The SG, rather than erroneously in The WRAG.

3. Yes, you can refer to a particular page/paragraph of evidence in the bundle, in your short 1 or 2 page submission.

So you are literally saying something along the lines, I feel that I should have qualified for The SG, as I fulfilled Activity xx, xx, of the Schedule 3 LCWRA (SG) Descriptors, and/or (if applicable to you) ESA Reg 35 (2) (b). Evidence to support this can be seen at Para/s xx Page/s of my evidence bundle.

You could print off a copy of the SG LCWRA Descriptors and highlight and reference any that are applicable. The same with ESA Reg 35 (2) (b), if applicable.

Or something of that ilk.

Yes, try and draw up an index to your bundle.

4. If you are happy with the submission, and feel that it has covered your SG qualifying criteria, then that is fine, unless you feel that you could add anything yourself that may help. You are allowed to present the best case possible. It is however best to keep the submission as concise as possible, so this would be a matter for your own judgement.

This is what the Tribunal will look at with respect to any legislation/descriptors that you are basing your appeal on, they will then go on to see whether the evidence provided supports this, which may obviously include verbal questioning also.

It depends whether it is already included in the submission that you have.

e.g. If you had limitations with Mobilsing, you would refer to Activity 1. of The Schedule 3 LCWRA Descriptors.

"1. Mobilising unaided by another person with or without a walking stick, manual wheelchair or other aid if such aid can reasonably be used."

Then go on to reference evidence as to why you could not :

"(a) mobilise more than 50 metres on level ground without stopping in order to avoid significant discomfort or exhaustion;

or

(b) repeatedly mobilise 50 metres within a reasonable timescale because of significant discomfort or exhaustion.

The above is just an example of course, and the Activity of the descriptors that apply to you should be cited.

Don't forget, the Tribunal will not expect the same from you, as they would from a qualified representative.

You can refer to any relevant evidence in your existing bundle, and/or any fresh evidence that you are going to submit yourself.

bro58

Thank you SOOO much, Bro58!!!

Hi Grace
Do not waste your energy trying to explain what the ATOS HCP said, let the Tribunal decide if the if the ATOS HCP is a clown or not.
Try to concentrate on how to meet the criteria for the support group, remember for the majority of the time, reliably, repeatedly and safely. use these words in your submission
I decided to concentate on the DM`s response and pointed the Tribunal to my evidence that challenged everything he was quoting.