Tribunal Decision

Hi ,
I have a query regarding a Tribunal Decision Notice.

The appeal is refused.
Ms R ... remains entitled to the mobility componant at the lower rate because she is virtually 8nabler to walk ??????
Surely this entitles me to the higher mobility rate.
Does this count as a 'slip of the pen'
Or does this amount to an 'error of law.
In the summary of reasons there appears to be a contradiction.
The statement from the EMP dated 28.1.13 stated that I could walk 150 metres ( although this was never tested.

The next statement is from a consultant who states that my walking ability is limited to 50 metres Dated 9.3.2013.

On 25.5.2011 The GP stated that there was no muscle wasting.
The EMP on 28.1.13 states that there is muscle wasting.

These are clearly conflicted statements.
I believe that there is something about a decision notice having to be claer and understandable. surely this Notice is anything but.
Advice or comments would be appreciated.
Thanks

It could be a slip of the pen, e.g. Ms R.... remains entitled to the mobility component at higher rate because she is virtually unable to walk. The slip of the pen being 'lower' being written instead of 'higher'

You need to contact the Clerk to the Tribunal at the address on your decision notice to clarify what the Tribunal decided.

If it is a slip of the pen, the Clerk can alter it. If the Tribunal has changed your higher rate to lower, then you need to ask for a 'Statement of Reasons' for the Tribunal's decision and have it checked out by a benefits adviser, as we cannot do this in the forum.

when you get a decision notice do they separate the two decisions.
The number 1 header says The appeal is refused.
Does this cover both parts.
So is the slip of the pen the phrase 'she is virtually unable to walk'

The appeal was to raise the award from lower to higher.

The final statement reads.
'The Tribunal did not find that there were grounds to supersede the existing award.'
So I am assuming that the 'virtually unable to walk' is the slip.
Can I use this as an error of law?

Possibly, but you need to check with the Clerk to the Tribunal to see what their master copy states.

If an appellant is on both mobility and care components, the decision is usually separated into two parts.

Sorry, but I'm logging off now, as I have to go on oxygen at 10.00 pm.