× Members

Reconvened tribunal & procedings of adjourned one

More
5 years 8 months ago #216069 by 25megroup
Thank you Gordon. I am referring to the second hearing i.e. the one on the basis of which decision was made

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

More
5 years 8 months ago #216071 by Gordon

25% ME Group wrote: Thank you Gordon. I am referring to the second hearing i.e. the one on the basis of which decision was made


What matters is whether the panel's questioning was reasonable in regard to the appeal being made and the evidence that is available, using a deliberately silly example; if the panel spent their time asking questions in regard to the Daily Living component and the appeal was for the Mobility component then this is potentially an issue that could be pursued.

Does the panel have to reveal the intention of their questions, the obvious answer is no and I don't think the claimant being unaware of that intent is reason to challenge the credibility of the Decision.

Tribunals are not adversarial as in a criminal case, the "prosecution" does not make their arguments and then the "defence" rebutts them, Social Security Tribunals are inquisitory, this means that the panel ask the questions that they feel are relevant, the claimant should then be given an opportunity to deal with any issues that they feel have been misunderstood or not covered by the panel.

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.

More
5 years 8 months ago #216072 by Gordon

25% ME Group wrote: Thank you Gordon. I am referring to the second hearing i.e. the one on the basis of which decision was made


What matters is whether the panel's questioning was reasonable in regard to the appeal being made and the evidence that is available, using a deliberately silly example; if the panel spent their time asking questions in regard to the Daily Living component and the appeal was for the Mobility component then this is potentially an issue that could be pursued.

Does the panel have to reveal the intention of their questions, the obvious answer is no and I don't think the claimant being unaware of that intent is reason to challenge the credibility of the Decision.

Tribunals are not adversarial as in a criminal case, the "prosecution" does not make their arguments and then the "defence" rebutts them, Social Security Tribunals are inquisitory, this means that the panel ask the questions that they feel are relevant, the claimant should then be given an opportunity to deal with any issues that they feel have been misunderstood or not covered by the panel.

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.

Moderators: GordonGaryBISCatherineWendyKellygreekqueenpeterKatherineSuper UserjimmckChris
We use cookies

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.