Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
If the DWP aren’t applying the law correctly they’ll lose at Tribunals. Especially the Upper Tier - I don’t accept that your one line summaries of these cases are accurate reflections of reality.
As First Tier Tribunal decisions aren’t published I’m interested in how you know the facts of the second case. Do you work for DWP? If so, you should consider the Civil Service Code and reputational risk to the Department by your attitude towards benefit claimants in general exhibited on this forum.
If you heard it from a “man in the pub” that probably says all we need to know.
|
Here is the
official public link to
selected upper tribunal decisions. Not all of them are published, and they are relatively anonymised, eg Mr X. They include details about the appellants claim and the First Tier Tribunals reasoning etc. It is only when an issue is raised that is thought to be of general importance that it may be published.
The older(2015 and before) ones are on a
different link and in a different format.
Here is the link to the 2nd quoted decision
CH/3295/2012
A rehearing ordered by the Upper Tribunal is not necessarily a sign that the claimant has "won". It can simply be that it was felt that the First Tier Tribunal hadn't explained or explored their reasoning in a sufficient manner. The principal being that the claimant has to have had a "reasoned judgment", so that even if they don't agree with it, they should know why. That is in the DWP rules, and even at the European Convention of Human Rights level(Article 6).
Can't remember any more specific details about the shoulder case to track it down, again. The 2nd case was easier as there was only one listed case of HB overpayment for Islington, and I had remembered that it was for Islington.
Too many of the cases referred to in this thread, can be quickly found to be not what they claim to be. Eg ESA refused, but claimant has died of a previously undiagnosed condition(brain cancer), yet the DWP is still blamed. Recent example of somebody with cancer being denied UC/ESA, when upon proper inspection of the article from the Daily Mirror, it was because they had a partner who was working. The cancer didn't come into it, yet it was claimed it was. Another classic, is the claim that over 100,000 had died as a result of DWP decisions. When looking at the original question asked of the DWP, it was merely the number of people who had died
whilst receiving benefits in that time period. Bit like asking how many Labour Party members have died since Corbyn took over as leader, and blaming their deaths on him. Just ridiculous.
All too often, the headline deliberately misrepresents the detail of the article. Certain people readily buy into the headline, without reading and
comprehending the details in the article. The truth is usually there for all to see.