dla low rate health not good

hi
after a tramatic tribunal hearing where i broke down,and after reading notes, seeing that they had not actually listened to me i was awarded low rate care not mobility, yet i was in a wheelchair! please ensure you have help with you from welfare rights. i could not get anyone.
My question is i was awarded low rate till 2014, as i did not prove (or they did not listen to me but to medical advisor whom destroyed me in the first 10 mins)my mobility is worse i am in pain constantly and need some help with mobility, how does one claim the tribunal was an absolute nightmare,and i keep asking for help from welfare rights but one has to be referred only by a ringback service! Have Post polio,CFS,osteoarthritus,fatty live(non-alcholic), real fatigue you could not belive!
anyhow any advice please, live in sunderland aged 55
male retired last year on ill health grounds

Hi Peter,

As a former Disability Specialist on DLA Tribunals for over 10 years I am sorry to hear of your bad experience with your recent DLA Tribunal.

Regretfully, there are good and bad in all professions and Tribunal Members are no exception.

I append below the President of the Tribunals Service Protocol Number 2 which deals with Complaints about the conduct of Panel Members.

You need 'face to face' advice from a WRO/Benefits Adviser with good experience of DLA Tribunals. Try Sunderland Welfare Rights Service

Jim
retired Welfare Rights Specialist & former DLA Tribunal Member.

PROTOCOL No 2 (09.01.01, revised 15.3.02, re-revised 7.5.02 and August 2006)

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 Tribunal Judge of the region where the
appeal was heard - if they are addressed to someone else they will be redirected to
the Regional Tribunal Judge. It is his job to investigate the complaint. If a complaint is
made about the conduct of a Regional Tribunal 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 Commissioners. 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 Tribunal Judge (or Customer Services Manager acting with
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 Judge 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 Judges'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 Lord Chancellor.

The current Benchbook for Tribunal Members is no longer in the public domain, but there is
a copy of the Benchbook 2006 in the DLA Resources area in the members only area of B & W's website.

If an appellant has good cause to complain about a Tribunal Member(s) conduct, it is not necessary to establish an 'error of law', see my post on Presidents Protocol 2.

Mod note: Sorry Gordon, you post wasn't there when I started typing

have a statement of reasons
nothing mentioned about me having a breakdown, statement says i managed 2 1/2 hours so fatigue not a problem
doctor was good at discrediting me by asking did i belive that my knees where better ,i replied no,he then stated so you don't belive the medical proffesional do a good job..how about that for a first question! completly threw me out lost total objective just really mumbeled did not understand questions..
re welfare rights no response waited for over a week for a call back..they are too busy.
i only really want to raise the issue with mobility
oh yes doctor said gait never changes..form birth..