Forum Home → Discussion → Work capability issues and ESA → Thread
First time SoR and RoP request…
Hello.
I have just received the RoP and SoR to follow for a FTT ESA appeal dismissal. We were close. NIL points to 12 points on appeal.
I am especially interested in how they decided on mobilising more than 200m instead of 100m. In the RoP the Dr. asks ‘you can walk 100m?’ (also in ESA50) answered yes. End of discussion. Our submission clearly stated 100m and explained why. I wonder I should have made a point of it then. But still unsure as to how they got there.
I wondered if there are links to online training, advice and guidance on how to spot legal errors etc.
Many thanks in advance.
Rob
Hello Rob
I thought you might like to know that CPAG do courses regarding UT cases, see: http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/appeals-upper-tribunal-0
Hello.
I have just received the RoP and SoR to follow for a FTT ESA appeal dismissal. We were close. NIL points to 12 points on appeal.
I am especially interested in how they decided on mobilising more than 200m instead of 100m. In the RoP the Dr. asks ‘you can walk 100m?’ (also in ESA50) answered yes. End of discussion. Our submission clearly stated 100m and explained why. I wonder I should have made a point of it then. But still unsure as to how they got there.
I wondered if there are links to online training, advice and guidance on how to spot legal errors etc.
Many thanks in advance.
Rob
I’d be arguing that simply stopping at ‘Mr X can walk 100m’ without considering his ability to do so repeatedly and within a reasonable time scale is a clear error of law, perhaps even in the absence of this issue being raised by the claimant in the ESA50/submission.
Re resources will have to bow to better knowledge of others. In fact I do find that Rightsnet itself is one of the most useful resources for me.
Thank you @alteredchaos, I was waiting for the London course. Perfect.
@chrisconnolly and @samw, thank you, I agree, rightsnet posts and replies help a lot and I was of the same mind.
[ Edited: 30 Jun 2015 at 04:31 pm by robverco ]What does the SoR say about the reasons for the decision on mobility? - tribunal has to give adequate reasons for its decision, which will usually include why it rejected evidence, and is particularly important where, if they had awarded a higher descriptor, the claimant would have passed the WCA…
[ Edited: 30 Jun 2015 at 04:32 pm by Ros ]@ros, only received RoP today. SoR to follow.
oh, ok…
@ros, but thank you!
Let us know when you get SoR - be interested to hear what they have to say…
I can’t think of a time when HMCTS have sent me a RoP before the statement has been prepared. All may be fine, but it might be worth a phone call to check they are doing what you think they are doing!
@ros, of course.
@robbo, clerk’s letter quotes “the statement of reasons will follow in due course”.
After re-reading the RoP I can see at the beginning the Judge noting mobility, standing & sitting and reaching to be the three descriptors we submitted should score points but no reference to reaching in the RoP. I do however remember the Dr. asking about reaching one hand to the back of the head. I wonder what they will come up with!?
[ Edited: 1 Jul 2015 at 11:28 am by robverco ]I can’t think of a time when HMCTS have sent me a RoP before the statement has been prepared. All may be fine, but it might be worth a phone call to check they are doing what you think they are doing!
Not sure where the o/p is based - but in the London region this had been standard for at least the past 18 months.
I think there must have been some sort of policy shift that’s caused this, because it used to be the case that the RoP was rarely supplied at all, even where the SoR request expressly stated that it was required as well as the statement. Since this initiative, I can’t think of a case where we’ve not been sent the RoP, so a welcome change in my book….