ESA Tribunal

Called them today and they were very nice but said that it wouldn't be accepted. He was very helpful and understood why she probably wouldn't be able to attend but said to put everything we have together including photographs of injuries sustained etc in as evidence. He also said to explain that an oral hearing would have been the preference but why we had decided on a paper hearing.
I know the success rate isn't as high but there are so many triggers including stress that I really doubt her getting there.

Housecat wrote: Called them today and they were very nice but said that it wouldn't be accepted. He was very helpful and understood why she probably wouldn't be able to attend but said to put everything we have together including photographs of injuries sustained etc in as evidence. He also said to explain that an oral hearing would have been the preference but why we had decided on a paper hearing.
I know the success rate isn't as high but there are so many triggers including stress that I really doubt her getting there.

Hi Hc,

Although quite rare,

There is the option of requesting a Domiciliary (Home) Tribunal Hearing, where it is carried out in your home.

bro58

Currently getting all evidence together and writing down information for the tribunal. There is quite a lot to get through and things that were inaccurate on the mandatory consideration.
Does this all have to be written by hand or can it be typed up?

Housecat wrote: Currently getting all evidence together and writing down information for the tribunal. There is quite a lot to get through and things that were inaccurate on the mandatory consideration.
Does this all have to be written by hand or can it be typed up?

Hi Hc,

It is fine to type it up on A4 paper.

You might want to present it as a file, (A bundle) with numbered pages and paragraphs and an index at the front.

You can then type up a one or two page submission including the important bullet points and refer to any relevant pages/ paragraphs by number.

The easier that you make it for The TS panel to see how and why you qualify for The SG, the more chance of success, especially if it is a "paper hearing".

This could involve citing the actual SG Activities/Descriptors that you consider applicable in the one or two page submission, giving reasons and cross referencing to the relevant page or a particular paragraph in the main bundle/file.

You could also cite ESA 35 (2) (a) & (b) if you feel that is applicable explaining how and why there would be a "Substantial Risk".

bro58

That's great thank you. It takes me a very long time to get things down on paper and even though it took me days to get the letter I sent before written up I was penalised for the fact that I can write!
My husband was going to write all the info down for the tribunal but he is dyslexic so it all seemed a bit daunting.
So far I have made a copy of the mandatory consideration and highlighted all the things that are wrong or don't make sense (most of it if I'm honest), numbered them and written notes of why it is wrong. Will get it all typed up and worded properly before it's sent off.
There is a lot there about not having impaired mental function and having upper limb strength. Well after a seizure my mental function is severely impaired and as for upper limb strength, there isn't any! I also have hypermobility and have a letter from a physiotherapist stating it as widespread and severe but that was ignored.
I have until the 3rd of April to get this sent back to them so have time thankfully and I am not feeling quite so stressed since joining here.

Just thought I'd post an update.
My wife has received a letter today.
Her paper tribunal was heard yesterday but has been adjourned because the tribunal is considering Regulation 35 but needs further information from the Secretary of State. They are expected to get a response within the next three weeks.
The tribunal has noted the list of work related activities on pages 133-134 but requires further response from the Secretary of State.
This is to set out the types of activity the appellant would not realistically be expected to do, Identifying what types of activity it would be reasonable to expect the appellant to undertake or consider whether engagement in such activity would give rise to a substantial risk to the appellant or another.
Not sure exactly what the activities are on pages 133-134?