Confusion over what seems to be 2 x UTT rulings

Hi All,

I have an ongoing case vs DWP to challenge my LCW award to LCWRA. In October 2024, it was at the Upper Tier Tribunal, where the judge said that the FTT erred in Law and my appeal was allowed. I heard nothing further until yesterday, where it seems a different judge from UTT has basically disagreed with the UTT judge who said my appeal erred in law, and stated his reasons why - and my case has now been sent back to the FTT for a decision, but with a different panel. My concerns are:

That the UTT 2nd judge appears to have told the FTT to make a decision on whether an oral, f2f, or video is to be made, despite me providing evidence of my social and travel anxiety, my chronic pain, and other health issues, that I only want a paper assessment, and also telling the FTT that new findings of facts need to be made in relation to the appellants ability to perform work related activity safely.

It has me totally confused because the case says it's been closed now - so I'm wondering, have I missed something here ? Understanding, or if anyone has been through something similar, and what they done when it comes to feeling like you're being forced into doing something (attending a hearing) - that you're simply unable to do.

Thank you,

Chris.

So, just an update for anyone who's interested. I contacted CAB who actually advised me that they were unable to help with this - so now I've passed my paperwork to Welfare Rights and hoping that someone can assist in this quite complex case. 1 judge sees an error of law, but the other disagrees - however the case has been referred back to the 1st tier, with a different panel, and nothing further other than to say that the ruling could go for me, or against me. It is unbelievably stressful, and I'm clueless now as to what more I can add to this, for it to go in my favour.

Chris.

Hi Kab,

Maybe's it's an option to ask my GP, although with how busy they are, I feel like I'm wasting their time, and hoping that the tribunal will just take my word for it, based on past and current evidence.

Thank you for your input though, appreciate it.

Chris.