Hi, I wonder if anyone can help me with this query.

I have taken on a ICB fail of PCA case for a client and have recieved the DM submission. On reading through the submission a large part of it relates to a completely different client! It is hard to see what information was used when making the decision.

A colleague has suggested contacting the tribunal service to ask for directions - as there is no hearing listed yet, and to also contact the DWP to advise that it is wrong info in the submission.

Is this a good idea or is there anything else i could do?

Thank you!!

I'd ring the DWP, point out the problem, get the proper sub' sent out and when you get it shred the one you have.

I would retain the "wrong" submission until the whole of the appeals procedure has reached finality. Whatever else, it is clear evidence to support any argument as to the competence of the DWP. e.g. If the DWP got THAT wrong, what reliability can be placed on anything else?

Is it just the name or the facts as well? they often fail to edit properly a resued word-processed sub (you know how easy it is to save accidentally the client papers you are working on onto your own submission template and corrupt it!).

The front few pages inc facts are correct, however the copy of the IB50 and GP report is for someone different.

Now that's bad, and probably a breach of the Data Protection Act for the other person. It means they've got the files mixed up.

Only just noticed this thread. Nevip's advice as sound as ever - I don't think, with respect, that the reply to the effect that the incorrect papers should be retained for some grand claim of DWP incompetence at the tribunal sits comfortably with the obligations of a representative as a party to the appeal at rule 2 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules.

Brian & Joe

As it's plainly my post that is being referred to, it seems reasonably to respond to the posting of Brian & Joe.

There is nothing in my post suggesting there should be a "grand claim" of incompetence. I referred to the "wrong" submission as "evidence to support".... I see nothing wrong with that approach and, in my view, there is no conflict with any part of rule 2 (which I have double checked prior to posting).

In my experience (HB/CTB), where there is one example of incompetence in a case, more examples (in the same case) are usually to be found. Further, having presented on both sides of the fence, I have found Tribunals tend (generally) to take a fairly dim view of LAs where incompetence can be demonstrated from the outset.

In the case set out in the original post, it strikes me that the "wrong" submission provides a prima facie case for arguing (at least as a starting point) that the decision purportedly reached for the appellant claimant was in fact based on the facts of another case.

No offence meant Kevin by the earlier thread - I too have presented on both sides of the fence and across a variety of benefits. A sensible tribunal judge will realise the error before the hearing (on reviewing the papers) and take steps to issue a direction to the DWP to sort it out. However, if the IB50 and GP report is for the wrong person, presumably the IB85 is correct. Presumably, also, the client does not dispute the fact that s/he had a medical examination. What is missing is the evidence of the appellant in the IB50, and the GP evidence - a hearing should not go ahead without that evidence being before the tribunal. Therefore, the likely outcome of leaving the issue until the hearing date is that the hearing will be adjourned. That itself may be detrimental to the appellant, who may be on reduced rate income support, or in some cases nothing at all (eg partner working) pending the outcome. The tribunal may well be critical of the DWP, but there is rarely any presenting officer there. The tribunal could equally criticise an experienced representative for not raising the issue earlier, as you may have had the papers for months before the hearing, and you would be the one sitting there and taking the flak in front of your client. I don't think there is a realistic prospect of a PCA appeal being decided against the DWP because the IB50 and GP report in the papers are for the wrong person

Brian

On the last point, I would say there is if in spite of all efforts to sort it out they don't ever send the right papers. Tribunals can effectively bar DWP from further participation in an appeal if directions are ignored.
But I think you should contact DWP and ask them ever so politely what the f*** they think they are up to.

ariadne: Surely you're not suggesting the DWP would ignore directions? What a shocking idea. As an aside, I'm most impressed by the technical terminology in the last para. Although, there are a couple of difficulties in your suggestion....

For example, actually being able to contact the DWP. And, if that part of the obstacle course is successfully negotiated, the assumption that, in response to the question about what they are upto, the DWP will be able to offer a coherent, intelligible, response....

In fairness, based on a recent experience, contacting the DWP was the easy part. However, the response was less than coherent.... In an attempt to accurately express my view of the response, I'd have to substantially add to your technical terminology. However, it's difficult to post on the boards if you're banned.... .

Thank you all for your posts.

I have gone ahead and asked the tribunal for directions and I am now waiting for a response.

I will post on here again once i hear back from them.

I am also contacting the DWP (by letter) not very hopeful that i will get a response advising them of the error.

Thanks again!