Setting Aside a DLA Decision and Judge's Questions

lorraine

Matters relating to the Upper Tribunal are outside the remit for the forum to answer, I'm assuming you are doing this on your own, so are unable to seek advice from a trained advisor.

What I can say is that the jusge is not trying to catch you out, they obviously believe your answers are important to their making a Decision, so you should answer them as honestly as possible.

Gordon

lorraine wrote:

Hi Gordon

Yes I am doing this myself and I appreciate your honesty. I just thought that the Judge's question was unusual in that how would one know what they would have replied 15 months ago.

Lorraine

It is important that you realise that all Tribunals, including the Upper Tribunal will be reviewing your condition as it was at the time of the Decision you appealed (e.g. 15 months ago).

It is important that you answer questions in that context, as they cannot consider your condition as it is now.

Gordon

lorraine wrote:

The Tribunal Hearing in January 2011 was in relation to a DLA form that was submitted in April 2008 so I was flabergasted to read that my condition was being assessed at a hearing nearly 3 years later and the two dates being compared. I thought assessing individuals at hearings was not the remit of the panel that is why medical evidence is presented?

The Lower Tribunal re-makes the Decision that is being appealed, this means they review all evidence and the testimony of the claimant at the hearing to make that new Decision.

The Upper Tribunal does not review the evidence in terms of its content, but in the sense of whether the original Tribunal panel discharged their role appropriately. So the Upper Tribunal cannot find in your favour because it believes the evidence you submitted, shows you meet the criteria for the benefit when the Lower Tribunal did not. But can find for you if it believed that the Lower Tribunal did not review that evidence with due diligence.

In finding for you, the most likely result is that a new Lower Tribunal will be ordered to re-hear your case.

Gordon