Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
You said in the housing benefit case they won a subsequent FTT? Is there a link to that? Those aren’t routinely published.
|
Perhaps I didn't explain it properly. The Upper Tribunal decided that the claimant was to have a rehearing, ie a 2nd First Tier Tribunal hearing. I have no idea how that rehearing went, although the First Tier Tribunal hearings are theoretically open to the public to attend. The issue wasn't what any final decision was, but what the claimants were trying to get away with claiming.
This is the normal type of explanation of the Upper Tribunal decision.
Quote:
|
The Upper Tribunal is not in a position to re-decide the appeal. It therefore refers the appeal to be decided afresh by a completely differently constituted First-tier Tribunal and in accordance with the Directions set out below.
|
---------- Post added at 11:39 ---------- Previous post was at 11:30 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
I make a case for better quality assessments/alternative forms of medical evidence from medical professionals. Not these slapstick copy and paste jobs served up by Atos/Capita/Maximus.
I’ve no issues at all with ploughing resource into genuine counter fraud work. Land registry data, credit referencing, etc.
|
What do you mean by medical evidence? The problem is that the "evidence" is all too often just what the claimant has said, without any possibility of proving or disproving it. The new non-disprovable "back pain" type things are things like anxiety, depression, and agoraphobia. How does a GP prove or disprove any of those? They have to accept what the patient says, without question. That is the opposite to the approach the DWP etc has to take.
The single person claiming when there is somebody else living there, can be a new situation that can arise. The signs can be difficult to find without a very deep financial investigation into things like bank accounts. Not sure they should be constantly monitoring bank accounts for inconsistencies.