Telephone Hearing

@Max789 - I'm not a lawyer, fortunately, but I wonder if it might be quite difficult to distinguish between those who refuse a telephone hearing for a 'good' reason - such as hearing impairment or similar, and those who just prefer not to talk on the 'phone?

Max you are correct I think, especially if one goes to hearing by themselves, sadly people do get judged and assumptions get made, even at tribunals.

e.g. if you state you have anxiety, issues communicating with people, and cannot reliably walk more than 20m.

Yet you go to a hearing by yourself where the building is on a pedestrianised area, room on second floor (with broken lift), and also at end of long corridor (described my tribunal building right there), you are already up against it as you will likely have to explain how you managed to get there.

e.g.

I was asked do I think I walk at normal pace, I explained during the first part of the walk a member of the public stopped me and asked if I was alright (did happen), I then pointed out there must have been something unusual about the way I was walking visible otherwise he wouldnt have approached me, (I was obviously lucky that happened), and that it only got wot worse from that point on in regards to pace and the manner I walked.  This was literally probably within 20 steps of getting out of the taxi.  The rest of the journey I explained I had to keep stopping, sitting down, if it was a bench I used it, if it was a wall I used it.  If there was nothing I stopped and leaned on a lamp post.  I stated it took me about 20 mins to walk what would be about 1-2 mins for a normal person.

I was also asked my mental state whilst walking there by the disability specialist, the first thought that came into my head was "it was hell on earth" basically a living and breathing nightmare.  This was my DLA tribunal a fair few years ago now, I wasnt after any anxiety related points so nothing related to that was been judged.  But if I was after the anxiety related descriptors I think attending the hearing by myself would have been a problem.

There is obviously different types of anxety, my anxiety is I have problems around large groups of people, especially in social situations, all of my family and myself believe I have autism, but it was never diagnosed as a child, so obviously I am potentially carrying a mental disability without the normal support that disability would entail.  Its hard.  When I was a child I went to a special school instead of pre school and first year of infants but someone obviously decided to push me down the normal route, and all through my childhood I was bullied for "been weird", I have struggled in social situations exactly like someone with autism would be expected to do.  However with my issues if I am in one to one formal type situations, and even in something like a 1 vs 3 tribunal situation I can handle myself.  This leads to judgements been made I must have no problems of significance.  I am pretty sure a tribunal would come to that conclusion if I ever had to go there fighting anxiety descriptors all by myself.

I have been judged in hospitals as well, I dont consider this exclusively a benefit related problem, its just an issue with society.

I wasnt even aware of telephone hearings, they seem a great option, and probably a best option for many people I reckon, makes it harder to claim people are mobile and dont have anxiety issues, whilst also allowing you the advantages of making your points which you cant really do in a paper hearing.

Well I do believe they are independent as an entity, I stand by that.

However I also accept that different people sitting on these tribunals will also be influenced by their own opinions of the benefit system itself, so e.g. if someone thinks people are lazy scroungers and most claimants are fraudsters, then they more likely to not award descriptors.  That is something that can probably never be changed, but of course the check in place to try and ensure unbiased fair decisions is the fact one can appeal a tribunal decision to the upper tribunal.

Interestingly reading some of these upper tribunal reports shows that when they over turn the lower tribunal, it can be because they believe claimants were pre judged and the line of questioning was to prove that judgement.

For reference Max, the tribunal I mentioned above where I got grilled quite heavily by the tribunal, I did win the award HRM (as it was on DLA), I did have to explain how I got there, and was asked some quite tough questions, felt I Was really put on the spot with the one about my mental state, they may have pre judged me and I turned it around, I dont know.  But I do know the judge was not happy with the DWP, he told me right near the start after I discredited the HCP and pushed aside all their evidence, telling me the decision would be based on my evidence in the hearing.

I just find it very hard to believe that someone with anxiety representing themselves would not be affected by that.  You either be anxious and barely say nothing which you may as well make it a paper hearing, or make your case which can be used to say you dont have significant anxiety. I do feel thats a lose/lose, and anyone arguing anxiety descriptors really needs someone with them in my view.