DLA Hearing

I attended my hearing today following the removal of higher rate care and mobility some 14 months ago.

Following a home visit from an EMP I made a complaint that the EMP did not in fact examine me despite her making observations on the functionality of my limbs and shoulder movements. In essence she stated that I did not have any care needs as I could deal with faecal incontinence by using the pads provided, my Chrons, Asthma, Depression, right sided weakness following a stroke were all controlled by medication.

At my hearing today the Chairman was more concerned as to why I had used some of a recent inheritance to travel with a fully qualified nurse he stated "Personally if it we me I would not be using my savings to swanny off on holiday but use it for my carers employment.

Additionally he then stated that he did not believe anyone suffered as a result of the Manchester Bomb and I could not have Post Traumatic Stress because of it. I did state that I had a confirmed diagnosis from a leading Psychiatrist, to which he shook his head.

The nurse who sat on the panel asked me what she would need to do for me if she was my Nurse, when I omitted to say cooking she inferred that I needed no help there. Despite this I said the District Nurses do not cook but give me my injections etc. She then asked how did I eat and when I replied out with friends she threw her hands in the air and shook her head saying what every day!!!!

I wasn't given a decision as my tribunal ran over and they had 3 other cases to hear what concerns me is that the panel appear to have personal very biased opinions

I am answering this over the weekend when the forum is officially locked as no one else had replied to you before the forum was locked for the weekend , and I move house on Monday 28 January, so will lose my broadband for several days, plus having chronic ill health & disability will need to rest after my move to a fully adapted bungalow.

As a former Welfare Rights Lawyer and DLA Tribunal Member from 1994 to 2006, I was appalled at the way the Tribunal Panel Members treated you. BTW, Chairman these days are called Tribunal Judges.

Presumably there was a doctor as the Medical Member and the Nurse was acting as the Disability Member, since there has to be 3 members on a DLA Tribunal, a Tribunal Judge, a qualified doctor (usually a GP, but sometimes it may be a Consultant Physician, usually retired), and a Disability Member, who is supposed to have a wide knowledge of the needs of chronically sick and disabled people.

It appears to me, that you have grounds to have the Tribunals' decision 'set aside' on the grounds that you did not receive a 'fair hearing'.

All DLA Tribunals must have 3 members, a solicitor with at least 5 years post graduation experience. The Legal Member is now called a Tribunal Judge.

The second member called the Medical Member has to be GP or Consultant. When I sat on DLA Tribunals, that member would have to have a medical degree gained in the UK or abroad, but must be licensed to practice medicine in the UK and on the list of the General Medical Council (GMC). I've been retired since 2005, but I'm not aware of any changes in the rules.

The third member (which I was) is now called a Disability Specialist who is required to have a wide knowledge of the needs of people with various disabilities and/or be disabled themselves.

Formal qualifications are not required for this member, although like myself some do have formal qualifications. Disability members include disabled persons, carers, welfare rights advisers and health care professionals such a nurses, physiotherapists or occupational therapists.

All appointments are Judicial Appointments made by the Ministery of Justice as a Tribunal is a Court of Law albeit an informal one.

All appointments to DLA Tribunals have to be CRB checked and have at least one, but often two stiff interviews before being appointed. Disability Members are an integral part of a DLA Tribunal, their contribution is equal to that of the Tribunal Judge and the Medical Member as they have equal say in decisions reached, and decisions can be unanimous, or a 2-1 majority. As in many other Social Security Tribunals the Judge has the casting vote, but as DLA is the only Tribunal in the Social Chamber to have three panel members, it's possible and sometimes happens that the 2-1 majority decisions are made by the Medical Member & the Disability Member.

This is the President of the Tribunals Protocol on PROTOCOL No 2 (09.01.01, revised 15.3.02, re-revised 7.5.02 and August 2006) I am unable to give you a link to this, as it is no longer in the public domain :

COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE CONDUCT OF PANEL MEMBERS

1. Tribunals do their best to strike the right balance between informality and authority. Informality is necessary to put the parties at their ease and to enable them to present their case in the best possible light. Authority is necessary to ensure that the hearing is conducted efficiently and with dignity and that when the parties leave the tribunal room they respect and understand the decision even if they do not agree with it.

2. No two tribunals operate in precisely the same way and there will be a considerable and acceptable variation in the way in which individual tribunals achieve that balance. Provided a tribunal operates within those limits it would not be right and would infringe judicial independence to censure it.

3. Tribunals often have to decide issues of credibility; to do that they may need to ask probing questions. Sometimes they must inquire into personal and intimate matters. However sensitively those matters are carried out some discomfort and embarrassment is always possible.

4. Regrettably, tribunals occasionally stray outside acceptable limits. There is never an excuse for rude, discourteous, aggressive or insensitive behaviour. Nor should a tribunal ever act in a way which is biased or prejudiced or gives the impression of bias or prejudice. When the conduct of a tribunal or the personal behaviour of a member falls below the standards we set ourselves we need to know about it.

5. Because we take seriously complaints about the conduct of tribunal members we need to have the complaint in writing. However, we will make special arrangements for anyone who cannot write down a complaint, for example because of language difficulties or disability. All complaints must include specific details of the grounds for complaint. For example, telling us that the tribunal was prejudiced or rude is almost impossible to investigate unless we are told in what way the tribunal was prejudiced or rude. It is also easier to investigate a complaint if we are told about it as soon as possible after the hearing. Otherwise it becomes difficult for those who may be able to throw light on the complaint to remember what occurred.

6. Complaints should be addressed to the Regional Judge of the region where the appeal was heard - if they are addressed to someone else they will be redirected to the Regional Judge. It is his job to investigate the complaint. If a complaint is made about the conduct of a Regional Judge it should be addressed to the President; if about the conduct of the President then to the Lord Chancellor.

7. Some complaints are not about the conduct of the tribunal at all. Instead they relate to the decision that was made, or the questions that were asked or not asked or the documents that were taken into consideration or not taken into consideration, or the weight attached by the tribunal to particular parts of the evidence. Those are matters that can only be considered by way of appeal to the Commissioners. If complaints fall into this category we will respond to them in the above terms.

8. Some complaints are in reality applications to set aside for procedural error or applications seeking leave to appeal to the Upper Tribunal. In those cases we shall treat the complaint as an application to set aside or seek leave as appropriate and act accordingly.

9. If the complaint relates to the conduct of the tribunal or the personal behaviour of a member then the Regional Judge (or Customer Services Manager acting with the Regional Judges s consent) will acknowledge it within 5 working days of receipt. We will assume that submission of a complaint implies consent to disclose it to the person being complained about and to others within the organisation who may be able to throw light on what occurred. However, before beginning an investigation, the Regional Judge will need to know whether the complainant intends to appeal the Tribunal decision and will seek that information when acknowledging the complaint.

10. It is not possible for the Regional Judge to investigate cases where the complainant states that the subject matter is confidential and should not be disclosed to the individual against whom the complaint is made. If there is to be an appeal the Regional Judge will start his enquiry straightaway but, unless the appeal raises issues quite different from the subject matter of the complaint, will not issue a final reply until the appeal is finally concluded.

11. Subject to the above matters the Regional Judge will send the letter of complaint to the tribunal member(s) and, where it is thought that he or she may usefully comment, to the District Chairman from whose District the complaint comes seeking their comments on the complaint. The Regional Judge will also consider other relevant information. At the conclusion of the investigation he will respond in writing to the complaint: if he concludes that there is substance in the complaint, either in whole or in part, he will say so; if he concludes that the complaint has no substance he will also say so. Sometimes the Regional Judge will be left with the word of the complainant and the denials of the tribunal member(s) with no material upon which he can properly reach a conclusion. He will say whether or not he is in that position. If the Regional Judge concludes that there is substance in the complaint he will decide what action should be taken to obviate a repetition of the conduct. The member(s) against whom the complaint was made will be copied into the Regional Judge's conclusions as will the District Judge. But whatever the outcome, all the papers relating to the complaint will be held on file. It will remain material which may well be relevant should there be a subsequent complaint of a similar nature.

12. If, at any time during the investigation, the Regional Judge considers that the complaint has substance and might amount to serious misconduct or incompetence, or might amount to racist or discriminatory conduct, or that the complaint judged against other material on the file gives cause for serious concern, then the complaint and file will immediately be referred to the President who in turn will, if appropriate, refer the complaint and the file to the Minister of Justice.

Hope this is of help to you.

Jim