PIP Upper Tribunal Refusal - FOI New Evidence

DGM1986

Hi all,

First time post so any help would be appreciated

I have been through all levels of the system at this stage with the UT refusing my request to appeal 

I am at a loss as to what my next step should be in this instance. I have spoken with Welfare Rights who advise Court of Session (Scotland) is the most likely next step but I have spoken with the UT themselves and the clerk advised that I can ask that UT judge set aside their decision.

I have severe concerns about the due diligence carried out by the UT judge. Firstly I received the response less than 2 weeks after submission. Most sources appear to indicate 10 to 20 weeks if not longer as guidance for response. The decision notice whilst not quite verbatim is uncomfortably similar to that presented by the FtT judge essentially a page long with no attempt to address the legal precedence set out in the previous letters or UT1 form. Combined these letters ran to circa 15,000 words of commentary. To receive such a watered down response/ refusal given the blood, sweat and tears poured in to the challenge was extremely disheartening

Nevertheless, the purpose of this post is to seek advice on some new information that I have received in my request for a FOI. The FOI was requested prior to UT submission but with the 30 day period of response I never received it until a couple of days ago. The FOI shows notes added by the court clerk at 11.06 am stating 'Case recorded on SD Card Hamilton 9 - I have emailed the decision notice to the appellant and posted the DN to the appellant and his brother his rep.' The concern in this statement is that my appeal hearing which was conducted by video link was still in progress at the time of this entry and did not finish until near 11.30am. The court has confirmed that the timestamp is the time it is posted to their system. This statement appears to suggest that the decision was made and sent before I had the opportunity to address the tribunals questions or provide any commentary of my own. I would assume based on procedure that this would be deemed erroneous in law and would render the tribunal hearing invalid. Advice on this would be appreciated.

Of bigger concern is whether this can be highlighted at this stage to the Upper Tribunal. Whilst it is not a procedural error on behalf of the Upper Tribunal judge I would assume it is of big enough concern to require addressing in some capacity

I recognise this may be a particularly unusual situation, however, any assistance would be appreciated

Tronster

People here aren't legally trained to answer this question if I'm honest, i think you really need to speak to a legal professional who will better advise you of this. 

UT appeals and vastly complex and only a trained professional can probably answer this question

poppy123456

Tronster said:

People here aren't legally trained to answer this question if I'm honest, i think you really need to speak to a legal professional who will better advise you of this. 

UT appeals and vastly complex and only a trained professional can probably answer this question

Yes i completely agree with this. We used to have an extremely knowledge member here but sadly they no longer post here, they would have highly likely been able to give some advice. Although even then it's very very difficult to give such advice on any internet forum because no one knows anything about the case.

DGM1986

Thank you for the responses I knew it would potentially be a little complex and require some legal guidance.

As a small aside, the decision notice I received the following day in the post contained only the Judges second name, no initials and no signature. Is that acceptable practice? I would have though for it to be legally binding it would require the judges signature or a clerks stamp