Hi, my request to UT has been refused for my PIP appeal.
I've been told I have 2 options left open to me to continue my case. As things stand now, my appeal has been refused and my case is closed.
However, I can 1) ask for decision to be set aside under rule 43 if I can satisfy rule 43 part 1 (a) and (b)
And rule 43 parts (a) (b) (c)
Or
Ask for a Judicial Review.
The person who was supposed to be my advocate, advised me to 'do nothing ' about the Set Aside.
In addition. She didn't reply to me about my options until after the deadline to ask for a judicial review.
As I spent most of Match in hospital in hospital with head injuries and deep laceration to my leg following falls due to losing consciousness, I think I may have good cause to argue for a 'late submission with regards to a Judicial review.
The deadline for asking for a Set Adide, is this Saturday, May 15th.
Again, I was in hospital yesterday for a cardio procedure and Monday was taken up either pre op assessment.
I have managed to write a formal request for a Set Aside under Rule 43 1 (a) (b) and rule 43 2 (a) and (c)
I sent this posted by special delivery to arrive at UT May 11, four days before the deadline.
My question is (Maybe
@Username_removed can help answer?) Is it possible to do both? Ie ask for a set aside AND ask for a judicial review?
I am doing this on my own now as being recorded as having a representative doesn't mean I've actually had representation, because I haven't.
Under rule 43, part 2, (a) is if you can satisfy that documents were not or not received, at an appropriate time by a party/party's reprentative at an sppropropriate time to s hearing relating to proceedings.
Part 2 (c) if a party,/party's representative was not present at a hearing relating to proceedings.
Rule 43 part 1 (a) says if the judge deems it in the interest of justice
Part 1 (b) is satisfied only if part 2 (a) (b) or (c) if at least one of these conditions can be shown to be satisfied.
As my advocate was NOT present at my FTT hearing, I'm hoping that this unequivocally satisfied rule 42 part 2 (c)
And documts not being sent by a party/party's representative satisfies rule 43 part 2 (a)
By virtue of these being satisfied, rule 43 parts (a) and (b) will shoe that it is in the interest of justice and part (b) that any of parts 2, either a, b, or c have satisfied the conditions to grant a set aside under rule 43.
What I'm not sure about, is I'm successful at getting the UT decision set aside, does that mean the judge WILL allow my appeal to be heard at UT?
Or will they bounce my case back to a new FTT?
And, in the meantime, can I start proceedings to ask for a judicial review? If so, how do I go about this?
I believe I'd need to show some kind of irregularity occurred with the UT? however, any such irregularity occurred because I believe that the UT agreed with the FTT judge, having not considered all the salient points of that hearing?
I've read the first tt panels redacted statements responding to my allegations about my hearing being cut short short due to the next appellant being outside the door waiting.
Whilst the judge neither confirms nor denies this, she states she cannot think of any scenario where she would've done this and also denies that my son didn't get chance to have his evidence heard.
The other 2 panel members can't remember, as it was over a year ago.
The clerk also says he cannot remember.
As such, the UT judge deemed my allegations to be without merit.
Ironically, he says its not mentioned what evidence my son wanted to give, so he has no way of knowing whether that evidence would've had any bearing on the case.
When I re read the ftt judges statement responding to my allegations, there were so many holes in her statement and two completely contradictory paragraphs, its obvious that the UT judge had only skimmed over the panels statements, otherwise, I think he would've taken into account that none of panel outright denied my case was rushed to an end, since they couldn't remember.
Whilst my son and I, clearly recall these details, since I only had the one hearing and it was MY hearing, therefore, my recollections of that day were pretty vivid.
Essentially, it was the UT judge taking the FTT judges assertion that she wouldn't shut down a hearing quickly because its against the rules, against mine and my son's testimony, that this definitely happened.
Surely, if nobody on the panel can recall specifics, we should've been given the benefit of the doubt, as nobody else could confirm nor deny that this happened?
Nor could anyone confirm nor deny that the PO was already in the room when we entered.
My point being, just because the rules say something shouldn't happen, does not mean that it didn't happen?
Or am I missing something here?
Anyway, bottom line is, what, if anything, can I do now?
Thanks again for bearing with me.
Best wishes and hugs to everybody
Cat xx