DLA Appeal

[me]

I applied for DLA 12 months ago. Was refused. Had a tribunal hearing
just before Christmas. Their decision went against me. Appealed to
Social Security Commisioner's office. They granted me leave to appeal.
They said the first tribunal's decision was wrong in law. I now have a
letter - Secretary of State's Submission to the Commissioner. There is a
submission asking for further findings of facts re my needs. There is a
request for a new tribunal hearing (from the Sec of States
representative to the Commisioner).

This letter is accompanied by form OSSC3A.

This form asks me to say whether I have any objections to the tribunal's
decision being set aside without the Commissioner considering the
parties' arguments or without the Commisioner giving reasons.

It also asks if I want an oral hearing before the Commissioner (and
reasons why if I say yes).

The thing is - I asked the Tribunal people recently if I would have a
chance to submit extra and new evidence that wasn't in my original
claim. For example, I now have a printout of my entire medical history.
And I want to submit other documentary evidence as well.

I'm not sure if I need to ask the Commissioner to look at this evidence
or let it go straight to the new tribunal. I'm not sure how to answer
the two qustions on the form. I don't particularly want to appear in
person either before the Commissioner or a new tribunal. Is it possible
to ask for a "paper hearing" with the Commissioner or ask a
representative to attend a hearing? And since it's now a year gone,
which way will I best expedite my appeal?

Any helpful suggestions greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[Niteawk]

I applied for DLA 12 months ago. Was refused. Had a tribunal hearing just
before Christmas. Their decision went against me. Appealed to Social
Security Commisioner's office. They granted me leave to appeal. They said
the first tribunal's decision was wrong in law. I now have a letter -
Secretary of State's Submission to the Commissioner. There is a submission
asking for further findings of facts re my needs. There is a request for a
new tribunal hearing (from the Sec of States representative to the
Commisioner).

This letter is accompanied by form OSSC3A.

This form asks me to say whether I have any objections to the tribunal's
decision being set aside without the Commissioner considering the parties'
arguments or without the Commisioner giving reasons.

Obviously you are not going to object, you want the decision set aside
because it was wrong.

It also asks if I want an oral hearing before the Commissioner (and
reasons why if I say yes).

Its better to have an oral hearing just in case you need to clarify some
points with them and vice versa.

The thing is - I asked the Tribunal people recently if I would have a
chance to submit extra and new evidence that wasn't in my original claim.
For example, I now have a printout of my entire medical history. And I
want to submit other documentary evidence as well.

You can do that when you are given a date for the new hearing, send them
copies by post to arrive no later than 7 days before the hearing date.

I'm not sure if I need to ask the Commissioner to look at this evidence or
let it go straight to the new tribunal. I'm not sure how to answer the two
qustions on the form. I don't particularly want to appear in person either
before the Commissioner or a new tribunal. Is it possible to ask for a
"paper hearing" with the Commissioner or ask a representative to attend a
hearing? And since it's now a year gone, which way will I best expedite my
appeal?

If you dont want to go then you can have a paper hearing, if you want to
send a rep then you opt for an oral hearing which is best IMO.

 

[Clive Martin]

I applied for DLA 12 months ago. Was refused. Had a tribunal hearing
just before Christmas. Their decision went against me. Appealed to
Social Security Commisioner's office. They granted me leave to appeal.
They said the first tribunal's decision was wrong in law. I now have a
letter - Secretary of State's Submission to the Commissioner. There is
a submission asking for further findings of facts re my needs. There is
a request for a new tribunal hearing (from the Sec of States
representative to the Commisioner).

This letter is accompanied by form OSSC3A.

This form asks me to say whether I have any objections to the
tribunal's decision being set aside without the Commissioner
considering the parties' arguments or without the Commisioner giving
reasons.

It also asks if I want an oral hearing before the Commissioner (and
reasons why if I say yes).

The thing is - I asked the Tribunal people recently if I would have a
chance to submit extra and new evidence that wasn't in my original
claim. For example, I now have a printout of my entire medical history.
And I want to submit other documentary evidence as well.

I'm not sure if I need to ask the Commissioner to look at this evidence
or let it go straight to the new tribunal. I'm not sure how to answer
the two qustions on the form. I don't particularly want to appear in
person either before the Commissioner or a new tribunal. Is it possible
to ask for a "paper hearing" with the Commissioner or ask a
representative to attend a hearing? And since it's now a year gone,
which way will I best expedite my appeal?

Your appeal to the Commissioner was "on a point of law" - effectively,
solely about the technicalities - whether the appeal tribunal did their
job properly. Usually either you, or the Secretary of State, or both,
suggest that the tribunal's reasons for their decision are inadequate.
This is much the most common "point of law" on which appeal tribunals
are overturned. However, all this merely gets you another go at a
tribunal; the Commissioner's decision usually has no bearing on the
rights and wrongs of your particular case.

So you should say you have no objections to the Commissioner simply
setting aside the tribunal decision, without considering the detailed
arguments and without giving reasons. And you should also say that you
(most certainly) do not want an oral hearing before the Commissioner.
There is nothing further you can gain at the level of the Commissioner.
The case will be sent back to a differently constituted tribunal to be
re-heard.

You can of course submit further evidence to that tribunal. Remember
though that the tribunal will be reconsidering the original decision
maker decision that was taken some time ago, so medical evidence about
events after that date (such as a deterioration in your health) will be
irrelevant. You can appear at the re-heard tribunal in person, or not,
and you can have a representative, or not. Statistically you have a
much higher chance of success if you have a competent representative.

I see you have had a characteristically confused and ill-thought out
response from "Niteawk" - you can safely ignore anything he posts.

Clive

 

[Niteawk]

Your appeal to the Commissioner was "on a point of law" - effectively,
solely about the technicalities - whether the appeal tribunal did their
job properly. Usually either you, or the Secretary of State, or both,
suggest that the tribunal's reasons for their decision are inadequate.
This is much the most common "point of law" on which appeal tribunals are
overturned. However, all this merely gets you another go at a tribunal;
the Commissioner's decision usually has no bearing on the rights and
wrongs of your particular case.

So you should say you have no objections to the Commissioner simply
setting aside the tribunal decision, without considering the detailed
arguments and without giving reasons. And you should also say that you
(most certainly) do not want an oral hearing before the Commissioner.
There is nothing further you can gain at the level of the Commissioner.
The case will be sent back to a differently constituted tribunal to be
re-heard.

You can of course submit further evidence to that tribunal. Remember
though that the tribunal will be reconsidering the original decision maker
decision that was taken some time ago, so medical evidence about events
after that date (such as a deterioration in your health) will be
irrelevant. You can appear at the re-heard tribunal in person, or not, and
you can have a representative, or not. Statistically you have a much
higher chance of success if you have a competent representative.

I see you have had a characteristically confused and ill-thought out
response from "Niteawk" - you can safely ignore anything he posts.

You dont know what you are on about as usual Clive, I can get a point across
in one line whereas you have taken 3 bloody paragraphs to say what is in
essence the same thing.

 

[Mike]

You dont know what you are on about as usual Clive, I can get a point across
in one line whereas you have taken 3 bloody paragraphs to say what is in
essence the same thing.- Hide quoted text -

Actually clive is exactly right, I recently dealt with another case
(not DLA) in which the decision opf the commisioner was similar. The
commisioner isn't giving a decision on the DLA at all merely the way
the tribunal conducted it's business. If you opt for an oral hearing
the comissioner will still only consider that aspect and not your ent
to DLA. Setting it aside without a hearing and going for another
appeal trib hearing is the quickest way forward, though there is no
quick way, it's all relative.

Having the decsion set aside does not mean you will win a subsequent
appeal tribunal, though you may do especially if you have additional
relevant medical evidence (see clives comments).

Clive is long winded but thorough and with social security law the
devil is in the details.

Mike