- Posts: 14
× Members
Who wrote the rules?
- Angel eyes
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
7 years 11 months ago #159503 by Angel eyes
Who wrote the rules? was created by Angel eyes
Who wrote the rule that Tribunals can’t consider fresh evidence?
I ask because I can’t get a “Balance of probabilities” revised in light of fresh evidence.
I’m writing a complaint to my MP.
I ask because I can’t get a “Balance of probabilities” revised in light of fresh evidence.
I’m writing a complaint to my MP.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- slugsta
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 9439
7 years 11 months ago #159525 by slugsta
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by slugsta on topic Who wrote the rules?
Hi and welcome to the forum.
The Tribunal can consider new evidence. What they cannot do is consider any worsening of your condition since the original decision was made. This is because the purpose of the tribunal is to see whether the decision was correct at the time it was made.
It certainly will not do any harm to let your MP know how people are really being treated.
Contacting your MP
The Tribunal can consider new evidence. What they cannot do is consider any worsening of your condition since the original decision was made. This is because the purpose of the tribunal is to see whether the decision was correct at the time it was made.
It certainly will not do any harm to let your MP know how people are really being treated.
Contacting your MP
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Angel eyes
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 14
7 years 10 months ago #159736 by Angel eyes
Replied by Angel eyes on topic Who wrote the rules?
Thank you.
An Upper Tribunal had personal statements, an OT report and a Diazepam prescription.
My GP changed around this time, which is the only good thing that’s happened. I cried for 5 days after asking for a fit note. That doctor’s gone to Australia.
An MRI scan was sent with a complaint.
I should be able to clear my name after being called a liar, surely.
An Upper Tribunal had personal statements, an OT report and a Diazepam prescription.
My GP changed around this time, which is the only good thing that’s happened. I cried for 5 days after asking for a fit note. That doctor’s gone to Australia.
An MRI scan was sent with a complaint.
I should be able to clear my name after being called a liar, surely.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Gordon
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 51075
7 years 10 months ago #159738 by Gordon
If it was a UTT hearing then they would not have accepted new evidence!
A UTT hearing is not a re-hearing of your appeal, it looks at whether the Decision made by the FTT was reached lawfully, as a result it only uses the evidence that was available to that hearing and cannot consider new evidence even if it shown to have been relevant to the date of the Decision that was originally appealed.
If the UTT had found in your favour and a new FTT hearing has been ordered then you could have submitted the new evidence and expected it to have been considered.
Gordon
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by Gordon on topic Who wrote the rules?
Angel eyes wrote: Thank you.
An Upper Tribunal had personal statements, an OT report and a Diazepam prescription.
My GP changed around this time, which is the only good thing that’s happened. I cried for 5 days after asking for a fit note. That doctor’s gone to Australia.
An MRI scan was sent with a complaint.
I should be able to clear my name after being called a liar, surely.
If it was a UTT hearing then they would not have accepted new evidence!
A UTT hearing is not a re-hearing of your appeal, it looks at whether the Decision made by the FTT was reached lawfully, as a result it only uses the evidence that was available to that hearing and cannot consider new evidence even if it shown to have been relevant to the date of the Decision that was originally appealed.
If the UTT had found in your favour and a new FTT hearing has been ordered then you could have submitted the new evidence and expected it to have been considered.
Gordon
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- slugsta
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 9439
7 years 10 months ago #159739 by slugsta
Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Replied by slugsta on topic Who wrote the rules?
Ah, I'm sorry if my reply misled you 
I did not realise you were talking about an UTT.
I did not realise you were talking about an UTT. Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Angel eyes
- Topic Author
- Offline
Less More
- Posts: 14
7 years 10 months ago #160451 by Angel eyes
Replied by Angel eyes on topic Who wrote the rules?
I thought Judges were supposed to get to the truth.
My letter is below. My MP is Private Secretary to George Osborne. I copied him into a complaint to an Ombudsman, and he said to them he thought I was genuine. When the complaint was dismissed he suggested I get legal advice.
Are Benefits and Work encouraging people to write to their MP's?
I wrote to you on the 18th August 2015 regarding Employment and Support Allowance. You suggested I contact Civil Legal Advice. They deal with Legal aid (capital) which I'm not eligible for. All the solicitors I contacted are too busy to take my case on.
I’m told it’s not possible for an Upper Tribunal to consider fresh evidence, which means I’m not even able to clear my name in light of it. I think it’s disgraceful that this process won’t let me do so. I think its disgraceful that fresh factual evidence can't replace probabilities. It’s unjust. I hold this government responsible for that. It preys on my mind that I was called not credible. You yourself believe I'm genuine.
I can’t re-apply either as the Tribunal suggested. Due to the length of time this process has taken my National Insurance contributions were too long ago.
I enclose my latest medical evidence.
This deserves to be rectified. How can you help?
My letter is below. My MP is Private Secretary to George Osborne. I copied him into a complaint to an Ombudsman, and he said to them he thought I was genuine. When the complaint was dismissed he suggested I get legal advice.
Are Benefits and Work encouraging people to write to their MP's?
I wrote to you on the 18th August 2015 regarding Employment and Support Allowance. You suggested I contact Civil Legal Advice. They deal with Legal aid (capital) which I'm not eligible for. All the solicitors I contacted are too busy to take my case on.
I’m told it’s not possible for an Upper Tribunal to consider fresh evidence, which means I’m not even able to clear my name in light of it. I think it’s disgraceful that this process won’t let me do so. I think its disgraceful that fresh factual evidence can't replace probabilities. It’s unjust. I hold this government responsible for that. It preys on my mind that I was called not credible. You yourself believe I'm genuine.
I can’t re-apply either as the Tribunal suggested. Due to the length of time this process has taken my National Insurance contributions were too long ago.
I enclose my latest medical evidence.
This deserves to be rectified. How can you help?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Moderators: Gordon, Gary, BIS, Catherine, Wendy, Kelly, greekqueen, peter, Katherine, Super User, jimmck, Chris