My Story Falure to dsiclose medical Improvement

Thanks for that. Pat

To be honest givcen thew attitude of the member who wont be there to be honest I prefer it thaty way given the attutde of the ember who wont be there (the medical member). There is an authority which the rEgional Judge found in the Courts and Enforcement Act which allows thisa to happen if all aprties agree. I will look at my notes later.

Do givee my reagrs to Jim Pat I do hope he feel much better soon.

Ron

Good luck, this is another example of how disgracefully we can be treated.

Hi Ron,

Jim would be interested in the authority, as the legislation he quoted hasn't been repealed.

DLA Tribunals are the only social security benefit where there are 3 panel members. All have equal say, and the Chairman, even if they're a District or Regional Judge has no more power than the other two members.

One of the benefits of a 3 member tribunal is that it can reach a 2-1 majority decision, which sometimes happened when Jim was on a panel. If it it turns out that the Regional Judge has found an authority in the Courts and Procedures Act, then Jim's advice would be not to agree, as it could reach stalemate with a 1-1 decision, and the Judge has no casting vote.

You've been through enough without the possibility of the tribunal reaching a stalemate decision and yet another appeal. The Tribunals Service can easily find a replacement for the medical member, and you have a much better chance with 3 members than two.

I've typed this, but it's from notes I made from Jim. With his 10 years experience of sitting on DLA Tribunals, he was able to cite this off the top of his head.

I'm going to ask Steve to look at this thread and see what he advises.

Thanks for asking about Jim, I'm hoping he'll be home before next weekend.

Good luck.

Pat

Now that is intersting. I will dig the authority out but as you say if there is a conflcit between primary and secondary legislation it is an intersting situation (I don't want to be the test case!! lol) but of course it may give scope if something does go wrong.

Some of the crazy questions asked of me was what colour do I dream in!! (I have no idea). Therew was a fire in the kitchen some years aog and I was aksed who I was on the phone with!!! How was I suppsoed to remember!! Further the Dr lumped together dislexia and dyspraxia as aspects whinch fall under mental illness. I am sure the organisations that are inolved in thesae areas would take issue on this. Theres just few issue that arose. I will posting something properly in the weektime..been trying to recover from it all!!

Glad to hear that Jim will soon be out of hospital.

Ron

Heres another quick reply..The authotiy on this is to be found at Schedule 4, Par 15(6) of the Courts and Enforcemnt Act 2007..the link is
www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2007/ukpga_20070015_en_19

Ron

15 (6)Where under sub-paragraphs (1) to (4) a matter is to be decided by two or more members of a tribunal, the matter may, if the parties to the case agree, be decided in the absence of one or more (but not all) of the members chosen to decide the matter.

That means if you agree, the decision could be made by one panel member.!

Also, note under 15 (8) Before making an order under this paragraph, the Lord Chancellor must consult the Senior President of Tribunals. So the Tribunal Judge can't decide on a less than a 3 panel tribunal. This is bound to cause further delays. If it were me I wouldn't agree, I'd insist on my right to a 3 person tribunal, otherwise things may go sour.

What does your barrister think of this ? Jim would also be insist on a 3 person tribunal which is the norm for all DLA Tribunals, let alone such a complicated case as yours.

Think carefully about this !

Pat