Appeals Tribunals

We have been advised by Benefits and Work about the monsterous tactic that the D.W.P. has contrived in conjunction with the Appeals Tribunal, that involves the former advising the latter that claimants do not wish to appeal against the Decision Maker's verdict when there has been a refusal of the application.

It is impossible for the reasonable minded person to see this as anything other than vile and evil (one is actually an anagram of the other now I look at these two words together). However, let the light shine forth and dispel the darkness; there is a simple remedy to this most grotesque scenario and I shall delineate it as follows:
Be sure to write the following wording at the very end of your application form (I am unfamiliar with the E.S.A. form, so if this is not possible, place it where it stands out the most if the end section will not accomodate it).

"As an E.S.A.claimant, naturally I am hoping for the application to be accepted, but in the even that it is not, then I wish to make it clear that under such circumstances, I DEFINITELY wish to appeal to the Appeals Tribunal should the matter need to go that far. If, for any unforseen and extremely unlikely reason I should decide that I do not wish to go ahead with such an appeal, then this instruction can only be anulled by a signed WRITTEN instruction from myself to the D.W.P. Under no circumstances would I give any verbal or email communication apropos of this matter."

Then place your name and signature next to the text.

There simply is not any way that you will not be able to show your intent, and no Decision Maker is going to tell lies when the proof is on the form itself, which can only be described as the ultimate proof, as it is the offical document which can, and will be sought if there are problems.


Although there may be fears of antagonism, the fact is that if people are going to pull out knives and guns, then we are forced with the decision as to whether or not we are going to meet fire with fire. However, I think that it will be seen by most, if not all, that at least the wording is congruously neutral. One must ask the question? If the claim has been denied, do I really want to risk losing my last chance of saving myself.

rosen wrote:

We have been advised by Benefits and Work about the monsterous tactic that the D.W.P. has contrived in conjunction with the Appeals Tribunal, that involves the former advising the latter that claimants do not wish to appeal against the Decision Maker's verdict when there has been a refusal of the application.

It is impossible for the reasonable minded person to see this as anything other than vile and evil (one is actually an anagram of the other now I look at these two words together). However, let the light shine forth and dispel the darkness; there is a simple remedy to this most grotesque scenario and I shall delineate it as follows:
Be sure to write the following wording at the very end of your application form (I am unfamiliar with the E.S.A. form, so if this is not possible, place it where it stands out the most if the end section will not accomodate it).

"As an E.S.A.claimant, naturally I am hoping for the application to be accepted, but in the even that it is not, then I wish to make it clear that under such circumstances, I DEFINITELY wish to appeal to the Appeals Tribunal should the matter need to go that far. If, for any unforseen and extremely unlikely reason I should decide that I do not wish to go ahead with such an appeal, then this instruction can only be anulled by a signed WRITTEN instruction from myself to the D.W.P. Under no circumstances would I give any verbal or email communication apropos of this matter."

Then place your name and signature next to the text.

There simply is not any way that you will not be able to show your intent, and no Decision Maker is going to tell lies when the proof is on the form itself, which can only be described as the ultimate proof, as it is the offical document which can, and will be sought if there are problems.


Although there may be fears of antagonism, the fact is that if people are going to pull out knives and guns, then we are forced with the decision as to whether or not we are going to meet fire with fire. However, I think that it will be seen by most, if not all, that at least the wording is congruously neutral. One must ask the question? If the claim has been denied, do I really want to risk losing my last chance of saving myself.

Hi R,

As you are new to the Forum, you may wish to read :

Welcome to Benefits and Work

It appears that your "Username" is your real name, as this forum can be viewed by the general public you may wish to change it, see here :

My full name is showing, how can I stop it?

As this is your first post, I have allowed it. However, can you please keep any future posts to a shorter format. All posts are pre-moderated, and as all pre-moderated posts appear as one solid block of text in the approval area, it can be most difficult to check for appropriate content.

If this is the case we can simply delete any excessively long posts, which obviously, we wish to avoid.

With regards to your suggestion, this is implying that a claimant can in fact submit an appeal, before the claim has even been assessed, and decided on.

This is not possible, as the act of appealing must take place, within 1 month of the date of any adverse decision letter, as a seperate action to the claim.

This scenario is covered in our :

Employment and Support Allowance appeals New January 2012

Accessible from here :

ESA Guides

Claimants are under no obligation to speak to the DWP over the phone, and do not even have to take the call.

For future reference, our FAQ's can be accessed from here :

FAQ’s

All our B&W guides can be accessed from the orange Members Only box on the left, as here :

All B&W Guides

You can search the forum for previously posted topics from here :

Searching The Forum

Cheers

bro58

rosen wrote:

We have been advised by Benefits and Work about the monsterous tactic that the D.W.P. has contrived in conjunction with the Appeals Tribunal, that involves the former advising the latter that claimants do not wish to appeal against the Decision Maker's verdict when there has been a refusal of the application.

It is impossible for the reasonable minded person to see this as anything other than vile and evil (one is actually an anagram of the other now I look at these two words together). However, let the light shine forth and dispel the darkness; there is a simple remedy to this most grotesque scenario and I shall delineate it as follows:
Be sure to write the following wording at the very end of your application form (I am unfamiliar with the E.S.A. form, so if this is not possible, place it where it stands out the most if the end section will not accomodate it).

"As an E.S.A.claimant, naturally I am hoping for the application to be accepted, but in the even that it is not, then I wish to make it clear that under such circumstances, I DEFINITELY wish to appeal to the Appeals Tribunal should the matter need to go that far. If, for any unforseen and extremely unlikely reason I should decide that I do not wish to go ahead with such an appeal, then this instruction can only be anulled by a signed WRITTEN instruction from myself to the D.W.P. Under no circumstances would I give any verbal or email communication apropos of this matter."

Then place your name and signature next to the text.

There simply is not any way that you will not be able to show your intent, and no Decision Maker is going to tell lies when the proof is on the form itself, which can only be described as the ultimate proof, as it is the offical document which can, and will be sought if there are problems.


Although there may be fears of antagonism, the fact is that if people are going to pull out knives and guns, then we are forced with the decision as to whether or not we are going to meet fire with fire. However, I think that it will be seen by most, if not all, that at least the wording is congruously neutral. One must ask the question? If the claim has been denied, do I really want to risk losing my last chance of saving myself.

Actually , unless I misunderstand you, that is NOT the case. What can happen now is that the appellant can inform the DWP by'phone that they do not wish their appeal to go ahead. However, if they inform the DWP that they have changed their mind, then their appeal will be reinstated. Jim has contacted the DWP on this and all requests not to appeal are recorded, and can be traced back.

I agree that I don't think this procedure is in the interests of claimants, but their right of appeal still remains.

See the recent Decision Makers Memo APPLYING TO THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL FOR ACCEPTANCE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAL BY TELEPHONE

rosen wrote:

Although there may be fears of antagonism, the fact is that if people are going to pull out knives and guns, then we are forced with the decision as to whether or not we are going to meet fire with fire.

No doubt, but not, however, in the first instance (i.e., when applying for ESA).

The time to insert the sort of caveat you recommend is when actually appealing, and not before, as the Benefits and Work Appeals Guide makes clear.

Why risk antagonising the decision-maker before you even know the outcome of your application for ESA?

This is the sort of bad advice I often see on benefit websites run by barrack-room lawyers, who always seem to favour confrontational tactics that are likely to be counterproductive.

Memo DMG 33/11 would appear to give conclusive guidance regarding the withdrawal of an appeal by an appellant, against a social security decision.

It makes it abundantly clear without ambiguity, that any telephone request to withdraw an appeal must be subsequently confirmed in writing to the DWP. It also makes reference in paragraph 4 to the fact that, "Under no circumstances must the DM express any view as to whether the appellant should withdraw their appeal."

This has always been the case because once an appeal has been lodged, the DWP automatically become a party to the proceedings in a judicial action. To interfere with the appeals process would be tantamount to the respondent's solicitor telling the appellant's solicitor to abandon the appeal, which would be deemed unlawful and possibly open to further repercussions.

On the question of the risk of antagonising the decision maker during the course of a (an ESA) claim, in view of the definitive information contained in memo DMG 33/11, this approach would not be necessary. However, decision makers are not infallible and do make mistakes. If a claimant/appellant has reason to believe that the DM has made an error, this can be challenged by way of a reconsideration and/or appeal. This also applies to any procedural errors in the course of a decision, if such a mistake can be identified.

There should never be any circumstances whereby a DM should or could be antagonised, as they are required to act in an impartial way in the decision making process, without recourse to opinion or caprice. Indeed, the decision-making process is designed to implement the relevant legislation pertinent to the benefit concerned without prejudice. This is further consolidated with the statutory right of appeal to an independent tribunal, if disagreement is expressed by a claimant with any adverse outcome decision.

Crazydiamond wrote:

There should never be any circumstances whereby a DM should or could be antagonised, as they are required to act in an impartial way in the decision making process, without recourse to opinion or caprice.

I think that's exactly the point, Crazydiamond.

By announcing that you will "DEFINITELY" appeal against the DM's decision if you don't like it and effectively warning him against trying to sabotage the appeal with underhand tricks and chicanery, you're calling into question those very qualities of honesty, objectivity and competence.

Professionalism may yet restrain the DM from reacting vindictively, but as you say, DMs are only human and I consider it very unwise to test their patience in such a rude and unnecessary manner.