Login FormClose

Free, fortnightly PIP, ESA and UC Updates

Our fortnightly bulletin, with over 80,000 subscribers, is the UK's leading source of benefits news. Find out what's changing, how it affects you and how to prepare. Our mailing list is securely managed by icontact in the US.

Welcome, Guest
Username: Password:
Remember me
Members
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2

TOPIC: Appeal unanimously refused

Re:Appeal unanimously refused 8 years 7 months ago #54909

  • pata1
WHAT IS AN ERROR OF LAW ?

The basic rules are outlined in Commissioners decisions R(A) 1/72 and R(I) 14/75 in turn based on the principles stated in Global Plant Ltd v Sec of State for Social Services (1972) IQB

A decision of a Disability Appeal Tribunal, Social Security Appeal Tribunal, or a Medical Appeal Tribunal may be erroneous in law if :

1) there has been any breach of the rules of natural justice ( loosely meaning 'fair play at work')
or
2) there has been a failure to comply with the requirements to record in writing adequate reasons for the decision and relevant findings.
or
3) it contains a false proposition of the law ex facie ( on the face of it)
or
4) it is supported by no evidence
or
5) the facts found were such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have come to the determination in question.
or
6) Technical error. This sixth ground is NOT covered by the R(A)1/72 etc grounds.
Generally, it could be summaried as a technical or proceedural error, a breach of the statute or of the regulations.

Hope this helps.

Pat

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Re:Appeal unanimously refused 8 years 7 months ago #54911

  • blowingbubbles45
Bro58 & Derek4, thanks so much for your replies. The reason for the two day deadline is the calendar month from the date of the letter enclosing the decision reasons is on Thursday this week.

I think I have decided to throw the towel in and am crying as I type this, it is such an unfair destructive process. It is hard enough being made to face alone what I can no longer do for myself with the resulting loss of dignity and I know I have been unjustly assessed but feel helpless.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Re:Appeal unanimously refused 8 years 7 months ago #54913

  • blowingbubbles45
thanks Pat, just found your informative post x

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Re:Appeal unanimously refused 8 years 7 months ago #55117

  • blowingbubbles45
OK, I have today been beavering away as I have decided to have one last go at the injustice. Can anyone explain whet this means ? I hae found a case in Northern Ireland which is almost identical to mine and appeal panels decison was overturned and a life award was made on both components. Don't understand this bit, any ideas

"I would also have liked to have seen findings as to pain or discomfort during any walking, as any walking carried out with severe discomfort must be disregarded. In view of the evidence of painful knees, this appears to be a possible error in the decision. The Commissioner may also wish to note that in decision number R(M)1/91 the Great Britain Commissioner held that pain or distress constitutes a lower threshold than severe discomfort".

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Re:Appeal unanimously refused 8 years 7 months ago #55122

  • Gordon
  • Away
  • Posts: 46348
blowingbubbles

The usual limitation for the physical tests is that the claimant is not is severe discomfort, from the snippet you have quoted the Tribunal appears to have ignored this with regard to a walking test.

Whilst there are no clear definitions of what "severe discomfort" represents, it is accepted that "pain" and "severe pain" are worse.

So to summarise, the Lower Tribunal appear to have assumed that the claimant was able to walk a certain distance that disqualified them from the benefit. The Upper Tribunal is saying that this was an error because the claimant was clearly in pain (pain being worse than severe discomfort), and that they therefore should have found them unable to walk the distance.

Hope this explains it.

Gordon

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Nothing on this board constitutes legal advice - always consult a professional about specific problems
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2
Moderators: GordonGaryBIS