TWO DLA APPEALS BEEN HEARD TOGETHER

hi jim apoligises to all ,i understand you cant give personal advice but couldnt find the rules for decision makers changing the preferred evidence if the original evidence was found unfit for purpose is there anywhere i could get this information ,

kindest regards and again apoligise didnt mean my post to sound like i was asking for personal help

letitia

Jim Allison wrote:

Hi Gordon,

To the best of my knowledge First-tier Tribunals can deal with and hear two or more appeals together if they relate to the same person or if they raise common issues.

When I sat on DLA Tribunals it wasn't uncommon for two or more appeals to be heard together against decisions not to award DLA.

I'm not aware that this procedure has changed, but of course the last time I sat on DLA Tribunals was in December 2005.

I seem to remember that Crazydiamond had several appeals heard together, so perhaps he could comment and advise if this procedure is still allowed.

Regards.

Jim

I can confirm that one or more appeals can be heard by a tribunal at the same time.

It is perfectly permissible and indeed is beneficial both to the appellant and the tribunal for this to happen. Since the inception of the Social Security Act 1998, the probability of appeals being heard together will have increased, as from that time appeal tribunals could only look down to the circumstances at the date of the decision. This means a tribunal can and will in all probabilities hear appeals relating to the same issues back to back.

Prior to 1999 a tribunal had the power to hear consecutive appeals as one provided they dealt with the same issues, as they were permitted to adjudicate on the appeals down to the date of the hearing. However, the SSA 1998 removed that power to the extent that they could only look down to the circumstances obtaining at the date of the decision. Consequently this could result in a succession of reclaims followed by subsequent appeals on any adverse decisions recorded on these claims, as it became imperative that claimants should make a further claim immediately following the adverse decision, in order to protect their benefit entitlement. For example, this is important in the case of ESA claims, particularly where there has been a deterioration in a claimant's medical condition since the original decision.

Theoretically and indeed in reality this could result in an appeal tribunal reaching a completely different decision on the appeals before them, as some could be dismissed whereas others could be allowed, depending on the circumstances pertaining at the date of the decision under appeal. Far from simplifying the appeals process, the SSA 1998 made it significantly more complicated for both the appellant and the decision-making authorities alike!