Tribunal ruling in favour before the actual hearing

[COUNTMEIN]

Hi all

 

has anyone ever not had to attend an ESA TRIBUNAL hearing because it was ruled in your favour due to the overwhelming evidence you supplied? If so, how long before your hearing did you get to know? and does anyone know, if/when the panel/judge look at the evidence you supplied[ for your case? Is it just on the day of the hearing, or do they look at the evidence as and

when you send it??

 

best wishes

 

countmein x

[paulb1310]

I have known of rare cases where the person gets a call on the morning of the Tribunal to say they don't need to attend as the Tribunal has met that day and reviewed the papers and decided in their favour. The Tribunal only get together on the day of the hearing. The Tribunals Service did try an idea of alternative dispute resolution but that appears to have been dumped. The DWP can change the decision at anytime before the Tribunal so it is always a good idea to send them copies of what you send to the Tribunal. Again I have known this to happen but not that often.

[ANDYANDFLO]

I have found this posting very interesting, and it has a bearing on something that I have been doing for the last week or so.

I am going through the appeal stage for ESA. In getting my evidence together something started to niggle me about the system. So for the past couple of days I have been telephoning friends and ex colleagues trying to get to the bottom of why is this benefit in such a state. I have spoken with people both in the DWP and HM Courts Service. Yes we know what is happening with ATOS, but that is only a small part of the problem. I was shocked to be told by an ex colleague at HMCS that in reality the Tribunal is there only to review what has happened and establish if the right decision has been made. All they are geared up for is to review the DWP package and listen to the submission of the appellant. They are certainly not there to examine and rule on new evidence/information (unless it is an exceptional situation), that should have already been examined by the DWP when deciding the case. It seems that we are making this into a mamoth expedition in gathering new evidence, getting supporting evidence etc The tribunal only allows enough time to review what has happened, not wade through new evidence to give judgement on.

 

That being the case, I asked one of my friends at DWP why has this problem come about. Is it that the staff are making too many mistakes? No was the answer - it is the claimant that is causing the problems for him/her self. He agreed with me about the intended use of the Tribunal system, and simply said that there are two elements of evidence that only ought to be needed to make the right decision. The ATOS report (and he admits that they know it has it's failings) and the form ESA50. They are told to give equal weight to both of these documents. They don't normally want or expect additional medical evidence, or letters of support from medical providers. The main problem is that the public do not complete the ESA50 properly. And he means by properly, answering all of the questions, giving examples and simply putting over to a stranger who knows nothing about the claimant, so that he understands the problems. He kindly has sent me a worked example of what an ESA50 should look like. It is completely fictious, but the info on it, is so comprehensive, that he would tend to believe that over the ATOS report!!

So I asked on here a while ago if the ESA is important. Yes it damn well is! Properly completed as it should be, will reduce drastically the number of 'wrong' failures going through the system to the Tribunal stage.

I am now convinced that most and I include myself in this, have caused the failure in the first place. Get it right at the start, and the decision will be right!!! His genuine comments about the ATOS report really surprised me. It just goes to prove that the DWP are human, and I now believe that they are trying to do their best but are hampered by ineffective ESA50's.

 

So the answer to the question is that it need not get to that stage in the first place.

[COUNTMEIN]

I have found this posting very interesting, and it has a bearing on something that I have been doing for the last week or so.

 

I am going through the appeal stage for ESA. In getting my evidence together something started to niggle me about the system. So for the past couple of days I have been telephoning friends and ex colleagues trying to get to the bottom of why is this benefit in such a state. I have spoken with people both in the DWP and HM Courts Service. Yes we know what is happening with ATOS, but that is only a small part of the problem. I was shocked to be told by an ex colleague at HMCS that in reality the Tribunal is there only to review what has happened and establish if the right decision has been made. All they are geared up for is to review the DWP package and listen to the submission of the appellant. They are certainly not there to examine and rule on new evidence/information (unless it is an exceptional situation), that should have already been examined by the DWP when deciding the case. It seems that we are making this into a mamoth expedition in gathering new evidence, getting supporting evidence etc The tribunal only allows enough time to review what has happened, not wade through new evidence to give judgement on.

 

That being the case, I asked one of my friends at DWP why has this problem come about. Is it that the staff are making too many mistakes? No was the answer - it is the claimant that is causing the problems for him/her self. He agreed with me about the intended use of the Tribunal system, and simply said that there are two elements of evidence that only ought to be needed to make the right decision. The ATOS report (and he admits that they know it has it's failings) and the form ESA50. They are told to give equal weight to both of these documents. They don't normally want or expect additional medical evidence, or letters of support from medical providers. The main problem is that the public do not complete the ESA50 properly. And he means by properly, answering all of the questions, giving examples and simply putting over to a stranger who knows nothing about the claimant, so that he understands the problems. He kindly has sent me a worked example of what an ESA50 should look like. It is completely fictious, but the info on it, is so comprehensive, that he would tend to believe that over the ATOS report!!

 

So I asked on here a while ago if the ESA is important. Yes it damn well is! Properly completed as it should be, will reduce drastically the number of 'wrong' failures going through the system to the Tribunal stage.

I am now convinced that most and I include myself in this, have caused the failure in the first place. Get it right at the start, and the decision will be right!!! His genuine comments about the ATOS report really surprised me. It just goes to prove that the DWP are human, and I now believe that they are trying to do their best but are hampered by ineffective ESA50's.

 

So the answer to question is that it need not get to that stage in the first place.

wow andyandflo, that is a great detailed reply, thankyou

I can see where your coming from on this, I fully agree, but my argument

is this.. firstly, I DEFINATELY underestimated the importance of filling in the esa form ( or whatever its callED ) i REALLY only thought I had to complete the section DIRECTLY relating to my medical condition ( vision) this part I did complete comprehensively. I found it very complicated, confusing and daunting, and to be quite honest, rushed filling it in as I was due to go into hospital within a few days and ' JUST WANTED TO GET IT OUT THE WAY BEFOREHAND....As I'VE said before on here, as I was/am having ongoing operations, recovering from them, on multiple medication for my conditions, along with weekly ( sometimes more often) trips to the out-patient clinic for check-ups etc etc, I really thought I would have no problem 'claiming'/getting what I am entitled too... ( 'SICK-PAY") AS it was called back in my day!! WRONG I NOW KNOW!....

also, I take issue with the fact that the ATOSH medical assessor, DIDN'T WANT TO KNOW OR LOOK AT ANY of the medical letters, operation details I'd had/was due to have, etc etc...when i was at the assesment...and then just to add insult to injury, when my case was getting 'reviewed. ATOSH BOSS MAN had the damn cheek to say, ' I DIDN'T SUPPLY AN OPTICIANS STATEMENT!!! STATING MY conditions...WTF!!..I've got over 300 pages of MEDICAL EVIDENCE they could have looked at...MY HOSPITAL RECORDS..

Dont think they can have it all ways...

 

thank you very much also to paulb for your informative reply

 

cheers

 

countmein x

[doktorjohn]

Andyandflo might be right in most areas but it does not explain why you should only be scored 2 or zero points, whilst at previous assessments, you have been scored 16 or 18 points.

 

I have always filled out my IB50 the same and said the same things at the assessments. In fact my condition is worse this time round and I made that very clear in the IB50 and at the assessment.

 

The Atosh doctor wrote the same things about me in the IB85 as previous ones and it's all quite fair until we get to the points; they simply aren't there any more, vanished magically into a parallel universe where logic still rules for the most part.

 

dj