DLA

We went to tribunal on Friday. Letter arrived this morning. Turned down. We think the tribunal are simply working for the Government. They are supposed to be independent. The disability rep. badgered us over the cooking test. Putting it three different ways. Suggesting my husband could use a small pan which wasn't heavy and kept saying it just has to be simple. We understood it was a main meal. My husband has a cardiac conditions, he suffers blackouts and he has arthritis. The claim goes back 12 months. We think they are implementing the changes now. Very disappointed.

Lorraine wrote:

We went to tribunal on Friday. Letter arrived this morning. Turned down. We think the tribunal are simply working for the Government. They are supposed to be independent. The disability rep. badgered us over the cooking test. Putting it three different ways. Suggesting my husband could use a small pan which wasn't heavy and kept saying it just has to be simple. We understood it was a main meal. My husband has a cardiac conditions, he suffers blackouts and he has arthritis. The claim goes back 12 months. We think they are implementing the changes now. Very disappointed.

Hi,

Sorry to hear of your disappointment.

as you maybe aware, the only way to challenge the outcome is if the panel have made an error in law or breach of natural justice.

It could be worth writing to the tribunal venue and asking for their statement of reasons and going through that in detail with a welfare rights adviser to see if any such error has occurred.

However generally speaking, I am pretty sure that our fellow moderator Jim who is a former tribunal member will be able to emphasise that tribunal panels are free to form their own judgements within the law based on the evidence presented and are independent of the DWP and government.

Pete

Lorraine wrote:

We went to tribunal on Friday. Letter arrived this morning. Turned down. We think the tribunal are simply working for the Government. They are supposed to be independent. The disability rep. badgered us over the cooking test. Putting it three different ways. Suggesting my husband could use a small pan which wasn't heavy and kept saying it just has to be simple. We understood it was a main meal. My husband has a cardiac conditions, he suffers blackouts and he has arthritis. The claim goes back 12 months. We think they are implementing the changes now. Very disappointed.

sad news and you need expert help..but most not all Heart problems that cause black out are rhythm changes, they would expect that to be ok with drugs ... if you can show or did show in your evidance its un controlled you might have a case ..but I am not a legal expert and dont know how strong your evidance would have to be and as the mods always say they are independent and come to there own conculsion,how strong was your evidance ?

also my understanding of where you are now, is the tribunal even if you had evidance they give there own weight to it.

I have never needed a tribunal but from posts here and other forums I feel that they are still independent and not ever going to be pushed about into doing any govenments dirty work ....

All Tribunal Members are totally independent of the DWP. Tribunal Members are part of the judicial system in the UK, they are now part of the Ministry of Justice, and all Tribunal Members appointments have to be approved personally by the Lord Chancellor as Public Office Holders :

From 'The Seven Principals of Public LIfe given to me when I was a DLA Tribunal Member for 10 years :

Selflessness

Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other benefits for themselves, their family or their friends.

Integrity

Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.

Objectivity

In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.

Accountability

Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.

Openness

Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.

Honesty

Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.

Leadership

Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.

Jima1 wrote:

All Tribunal Members are totally independent of the DWP. Tribunal Members are part of the judicial system in the UK, they are now part of the Ministry of Justice, and all Tribunal Members appointments have to be approved personally by the Lord Chancellor as Public Office Holders :

From 'The Seven Principals of Public LIfe given to me when I was a DLA Tribunal Member for 10 years :

Selflessness

Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other benefits for themselves, their family or their friends.

Integrity

Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.

Objectivity

In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.

Accountability

Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.

Openness

Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.

Honesty

Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.

Leadership

Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.

Interesting reading looks just like what I was told when I was becoming JP did you have to appear before a panel too ? and answer loads of questions ?

I had to have two interviews to be a DLA Tribunal Member, one was with the then called Independent Tribunals Service (now called the Tribunals Service) Regional Chairman (now called Regional Judges), and another with a senior lawyer from the Dept of Justice.

When the ITS became part of the judiciary, I had to re-apply for my appointment, again after 2 very 'stiff' interviews and only 70% were re-appointed.

Are you still a JP ?