PIP, DLA and AA
If this is your first visit, check out the community guide. You will have to Join us or Sign in before you can post.
Receiving too many notifications? Adjust your notification settings.

Who should I take with me to my tribunal?

GoddesshubGoddesshub Member Posts: 1 Listener
edited November 2018 in PIP, DLA and AA
There is so much information out there, my partner is going to a tribunal with me. Do we need anyone else to make sure we are dealt with fairly. My assessment with capita was completely untrue and it had taken alot for me to actually speak to the person. I'm not sure what is helpful and what is just distraction or money making. Thx 🤔

Replies

  • Richard_ScopeRichard_Scope Community Team Posts: 2,587 Scope community team
    A very warm welcome to our community! I will move your post to our PIP/DLA discussions where our very knowledgeable members should be able to advise you:smiley:

    Scope
    Specialist Information Officer - Cerebral Palsy

    Want to tell us about your experience on the community? Talk to our chatbot and let us know. 
  • markyboymarkyboy Member Posts: 374 Pioneering
    No because you are the person who the tribunal will put their questions to your husband will be asked at the end of the hearing if there is anything he would like to add
  • CockneyRebelCockneyRebel Member Posts: 5,258 Disability Gamechanger
    edited November 2018
    Do you have a hearing date ?

    you should be familiar with the descriptors and how you meet the criteria for each one
    Be all you can be, make  every day count. Namaste
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 5,314 Disability Gamechanger
    edited November 2018
    markyboy said:
    No because you are the person who the tribunal will put their questions to your husband will be asked at the end of the hearing if there is anything he would like to add
    Er, yes, because your chances of success increase significantly with competent representation. And there’s also the small matter of the messa remark W can make of it if they don’t understand their role and the capacity in which they’re attending. Around 20% less chance without a rep.

    You can be 

    - a representative - you don’t talk for the appellant because they’re there but you do get to outline what award you’re looking for and what the legal case is as well as pick up on any issues the tribunal or appellant miss or misinterpret.

    - observer - sits away from the tribunal but you are watching only. You do not and cannot take part.

    - witness - you give your own evidence to support the appellants own case. You don’t get to comment on anything else. You watch silently, do your bit and you’re done.

    - appellant - the person making the claim being appealed. The only person allowed to present their evidence and answer questions on it unless they have an appointee. 

    Most family members struggle to be observers as it’s hard to be silent. They struggle to represent as they don’t know enough of the law, case law or guidance and confuse the role with speaking for the appellant and get shot down in flames to the detriment of the case. They often make poor witnesses as they haven’t been prepared by a rep and want to rehear the whole case instead of focusing on what they know. 

    The temptation to talk for any appellant needs to be resisted. You’ll always get people saying “but...

    - they’re not articulate.

    - they’re nervous.

    and many other arguments. Bottom line - nothing makes the case for the consequences of someone’s ill health better than a poorly appellant. 

    The other side of having representative is that, as you’ll read on here, people get incredibly stressed with the process; what comes when; what letters mean; what is good evidence; what will happen on the day. A good rep explains all and covers all the bases. It’s typical that people think representation is just about what happens on the day and the outcome. That’s about 10% of what gets done. A good rep should also keep you off web forums (seriously). All your questions should be answered by them. If people come on here because they need answers and they have a rep. that is concerning. 

    Now, having said that, tribunals are inquisitorial so it’s perfectly possible to win a case without a rep just as it’s equally possible to lose a case with a rep. However, a badly presented case can win with a decent tribunal but won’t with a poor one People who have won without representation tend to almost always ascribe this to something they did rather than the skill of the tribunal pulling out what was relevant. Having seen tribunals over three decades, including many times as an observer, it’s almost never the case. I’ve never yet heard of anyone unrepresented winning two tribunals for themselves. 

    Finally, don’t confuse an organisation with a good reputation as meaning all their reps will be good. Good organisations have bad reps. Reputationally poor organisation have good reps. How can you tell? Walk away from anyone who wants to tell you their success rate? It’s a fave tactic of organisations that charge but also of inexperienced or renegade/boastful reps. That tells you that they’re either lying or cherry picking only cases which are clear cut winners and probably would be anyway with a decent tribunal and without them. Good reps do not guarantee a win but they will take in winnsble cases rather than likely winners and they’re the more likely to turn a marginal case into a winner. They’ll also know their law, case law and guidance and be able to cite it but in plain English. 

    Going to take a punt and guess none of this has been thought about. 

Sign in or join us to comment.