I have had an ESA Tribunal and a DLA Tribunal, both were held in a disability centre and although it was a formal proceedure it was in a relaxed manner. In both cases there were 3 people on the "Bench" which consisted of the Judge, a Doctor and one other person (on the DLA Tribunal the other person was a lady in a wheelchair). In both cases all the people asked me questions and they all told me that if I could not remember any particular facts then to say so, because it had been almost 2 years between the Appeal and the Tribunal Hearing and they did not expect me to remember every single detail from that far back. In my case I thought that they were thorough but fair in their questioning and they were happy to take any breaks that I required, DWP did not send a representative to either hearing and the Judge did make a point of stating this. I was successful in both Tribunals, in that I received the awards that I believed I was entitled to.

As Desperate Daniella says, How did you get on What is a Home ? I don't know if you looked at my link on post #50 but the relevant part of it is this :: Introductory Tenancies for new tenants These were created by the Housing Act 1996. They are tenancies which can be granted by a local authority or housing action trust. However, the local authority must have "elected" to operate the introductory tenancy in it's district, in which case it will apply to all it's future lettings to new tenants. The tenancy does not become "permanent" until 12 months after it starts. If at any time before this 12 month period ends the tenant misbehaves the local authority / housing action trust can get possession. I have just checked my Tenancy Agreement and it states exactly this on it and as 1 year has just passed on mine today I intend to contact my local council and confirm that I am now a "Permanent Tenant". In fact I am about to have another full read through it, because I am sure I saw a sentence that stated "provide the house for life at the agreed rent" which would even put a different slant on the "bedroom tax".

I would certainly question your statement of "offering a better standard of work." particularly when it involves "cosmetic" dentistry having seen and read so many cases of correctal dentistry and surgery having to be made after people have had "private" treatment abroad. Had you said because they were offering treatment cheaper then I would have agreed.

I realise that the Site Team have a job to do and at times it must be very difficult, and mistakes will be perceived to be made by both the posters and the site team because it is impossible to please everyone. I also realise that referals and comparisons to Nazi Germany can be construed to be offensive to some but in the context it has been used I would say that was debatable having read the following :: http://www.accessmagazine.co.uk/sue-marsh-stand-turning-point/

I had my post removed although I did not mention nazis, I did say about using a sign stating "work makes you free" but in german. There are other posts still on the thread that actually mention concentration camps although I do not recall the actual use of the word nazis anywhere in the thread. It is however often used in threads criticising people associated with groups such as the EDL, which appears to be acceptable.

Totally agree, that is why I said "In my opinion it is the government trying to reduce the numbers on Benefits by stealth"

So, so, True !! On a subject like that the attendance is a disgrace !! Had it been a debate about their salaries they would have been fighting to get in. This shows just how little our representatives in government care for us. It is people like Dennis Skinner that we should have as leaders of the Parties, those who wish to represent the interests of the electorate and not just bothered about their own political career path.

Good Luck what is a home have a look at post #50 and see if this has any relevance to your case, and maybe a quick line to compactlaw could be helpful.

So is the amount that is paid in Benefits to the Sick and Unemployed but that makes no difference to opinions being voiced about that either. Anyhow, as for the letter it most definitely is not written by a 72 year old OAP and I would even question if it was written by a Brit if only for the the use of the phrase "put working families and small businesses behind the eight ball". The content is probably about right but to pretend that it is from an OAP is underhand.

Is that your opinion of what has happened or do you happen to know the people who are asking for a refund ? I assume that this was a private sale, particularly with the age and value of the caravan and would therefore also assume that it was sold "in good faith" because with a caravan this age it is highly unlikely that it's full history and usage is known. And as such it would be a case of "Caveat Emptor" or "Let the Buyer Beware" and so especially after such a lapse of time the new owners really do not have any recourse.

It is not the DWP looking at charging for Appeals, it is the Department of Justice and they are suggesting a charge for the appeal and a charge for the Tribunal Hearing. In my opinion it is the government trying to reduce the numbers on Benefits by stealth. Many who are on Benefits would not be able to afford the cost of an Appeal and Tribunal and so will either accept a lower level of Benefit awarded or not bother claiming at all. The exact same thing happened with Employment Tribunals, which are also handled by the Department of Justice and since the charges were introduced there has been a huge drop in the number of employees/workers taking their employers to Tribunal. So it looks like there is only going to be justice for the rich !!

In which case the king12345 post should have been removed.

What is a Home, do you have your Tenancy Agreement ? If so what exactly does it state as your type of Tenancy ? When you have this information check out what responsibilities the Council have in relation to that type of Tenancy in the Housing Act 1985. Here is a link to it :: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/68/contents Depending on which type of Tenancy the Council should have followed certain regulations so it may be worth checking those, because if you have been a good tenant and are not in arrears then the Council should have been offering you a Full Tenancy at some point and certainly should not be treating you as a completely new tenant, because you have been occupying one of their houses for 10 years ! That cannot just be dismissed !! ALSO, have a look at this :: http://www.compactlaw.co.uk/free-legal-information/public-housing/introductory-tenancies.html I am fairly certain this should have applied to you, and as these people appear to know a bit about it they may be worth contacting.

Why was my last post removed ? If it was for decrying King12345's supercilious post then it is only fair that his post is also removed because this part of the forum is supposed to be to help people not kick them when they are down !!!!

It hasn't been officially released but it has been said that the suspension of Repeat (please note Repeat) ESA WCA's that would have been carried out by ATOS will be suspended for 2 years, however it will not affect new claims.

GPs are already having to complete Medical Histories of many of the claimants at ATOS request, after which these reports are instantly ignored. So, although it would require some extra work for GPs it would not be to the extent that you envisage. Yes, this would require extra funding and rightly so but this would only require part of the saving made by getting rid of ATOS. The decisions on the Fit For Work Assessments are not made face to face and the assessment given by a GP would actually be based on proper examinations and symptoms of the conditions being claimed to affect the ability to work and I am sure that GPs already treat those patients who they feel are "trying in on" with the contempt that they deserve.

In which case can you explain how someone caught speeding on the motorway by the gantry cameras can be prosecuted without photographic evidence ? I was not fellacious, it is you being pedantic.

This E-Petition is requesting "Let GP's Do Fit For Work Assessments Instead of ATOS" If this were to happen it would mean that GP's who know about their patients ailments could complete these assessments using the medical knowledge and history that they have and know about. This would also save the cost of utilising companies like ATOS who have been proven to not be fit for purpose, it would stop the misery caused to sick and disabled people who have their benefits stopped while waiting appeals and of course the cost of these appeals. I feel sure this would be much more cost effective and therefore save taxpayers money. If you wish to sign please go to this link :: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/54430 Thank you in advance to anyone who signs.

Conniff, I think you may well be correct that it says so on the signs above the phone although I cannot tell from the photograph. But, surely anything on that sign would only be read if you approached the phone and if that was the case then wouldn't that be considered as the notice being too late to be adhered to, as stated in the Road Traffic Signals Manual Chapter 1 - 1.2. :- Signs must give road users their message clearly and at the correct time. The message must be unambiguous and speedily understood; it must be given not too soon for the information to have been forgotten before it is needed, and not too late for the safe performance of consequent manoeuvres. That would be my opinion; but I would happily bow to your opinion if it differs to mine, considering your extensive knowledge of many of these situations.

That is exactly the point you can only be able to prosecute you if they are able to prove beyond reasonable doubt and with many motoring offences unless there is photographic evidence then there is reasonable doubt.

Yes there is specific requirements for photographic evidence on some offences ! Eye witness testimony can sometimes be adequate but it is also easily questioned if it is one persons word against anothers. Yes, people were convicted of crimes long before cameras were invented but many other crimes were thrown out of court because of insufficient evidence.

The signage is ambiguous and does not give full notification that all vehicles have to phone the signal box. As taken from The Road Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 1 - 1.2. "Signs must give road users their message clearly and at the correct time. The message must be unambiguous and speedily understood" Also in Chapter 3 - 1.1. (Introduction) "In particular,adjudicators might consider such failure to be evidence that the signing was unclear." Another point to mention again from Road Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3 - 1.15 "It is essential that drivers have an unobstructed view of traffic signs. The distance which should be kept clear of obstructions to the sight line, whether caused by vegetation, other signs or street furniture, is known as the clear visibility distance." The Government list of signs only mentions large or slow moving vehicles to phone the signal box. See here :: http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/@motor/documents/digitalasset/dg_191955.pdf The only Regulations that mention "All Vehicle Must Phone" are the Office of Rail Regulations and so it can be easily argued that you have not broken any Road Users Regulations and as a road user cannot be expected to know or adhere to the Office of Rail Regulations.

I think your arguement needs to be that the Council have not adhered to the Law on Housing Eligibility and not so much about your Human Rights. There are Rules and Regulations that apply to how, when and what housing is given and your Council have definitly not adhered to those rules, this bit alone appears to me to point out that they have not done what they are supposed to do :- The main homelessness duty 11. Under the legislation, certain categories of household, such as families with children and households that include someone who is vulnerable, for example because of pregnancy, old age, or physical or mental disability, have a priority need for accommodation. Housing authorities must ensure that suitable accommodation is available for people who have priority need, if they are eligible for assistance and unintentionally homeless (certain categories of persons from abroad are ineligible.) This is known as the main homelessness duty. The housing authority can provide accommodation in their own stock or arrange for it to be provided by another landlord, for example, a housing association or a landlord in the private rented sector. 12. If settled accommodation is not immediately available, accommodation must be made available in the short term until the applicant can find a settled home, or until some other circumstance brings the duty to an end, for example, where the household voluntarily leaves the temporary accommodation provided by the housing authority. A settled home to bring the homelessness duty to an end could include the offer of a suitable secure or introductory tenancy in a local authority’s housing stock (or nomination for a housing association assured tenancy) allocated under Part 6 of the 1996 Act or the offer of a suitable tenancy from a private landlord made by arrangement with the local authority.13. Under the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003, housing authorities can no longer discharge a homelessness duty to secure suitable accommodation by placing families with children, and households that include a pregnant woman, in Bed & Breakfast accommodation for longer than six weeks – and then only if more suitable accommodation is not available. Much more about these Rules and Regulations can be found here :: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7841/152056.pdf I feel this route would be much more successful than Human Rights, many Councils do not adhere to Parking and Road Marking Regulations never mind Housing Regulations because the majority of the Council Staff do not know the Regulations as they usually only get basic training and/or are only given salient points to work on.

This E-Petition is requesting "Let GP's Do Fit For Work Assessments Instead of ATOS" If this were to happen it would mean that GP's who know about their patients ailments could complete these assessments using the medical knowledge and history that they have and know about. This would also save the cost of utilising companies like ATOS who have been proven to not be fit for purpose, it would stop the misery caused to sick and disabled people who have their benefits stopped while waiting appeals and of course the cost of these appeals. I feel sure this would be much more cost effective and therefore save taxpayers money. If you wish to sign please go to this link :: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/54430 Thank you in advance to anyone who signs.

Sailor Sam, you are making an assumption ! "spares or repairs" (which means it's a non-runner)"........................................No it does not mean it's a non-runner, it means exactly as it states "for spares or repairs".........................that repair may only be a scratch requiring touch-up or a bulb replacing, or in some cases a new engine or clutch or whatever else. No where is the trader stating that the vehicle is a non-runner or unroadworthy..........................Spares or repairs, means exactly that, it may or may not require substanstial work and therefore is sold as not to retail standard and thus cheaper than retail value.