I am trying to find out if there has been any discussion/commissioners decisions about - "client has history of failure to attend" comments in Secretary of State submissions. I do not think it is fair to raise this at tribunal especially if good cause was shown previously. I think there threfore no place for it in papers about a new case - is there something I'm missing in law or guidance that says they should look at past history - and anyway surely this supports fact that yes there is a pattern therefore client obviously has problems in attending appointments! What do you think?

I am not aware of any CD's on this, but then again it was about 12mths ago I had my last one like this.

But I agree with what you are saying. The last one I had was a case involving someone who had missed 4 appts. She won at tribunal (we did raise the issue that her mental health meant she was unlikely to show up and she had requested home visits from the DWP with no response by them) but the chair said "dont let it happen again because I will not feel the same next time" (that is not a direct quote but covers what he meant).

I thought the comments were unfair, but cl did not want to complain. I think it goes to show how much past history they are going to take in to account.

It should be on a case by case basis esp. where previously good cause was shown/accepted by DWP.

I used to be a DWP DM. I was quite understanding on failure to attend, especially on notorious clients who you knew would never be employable anyway, but you can only go so far, and most excuses are dreadful-if you ask for the same clt to call in for a payment they will always turn up strangely!?. Domiciliary exams will be done if the clt gets a GP letter to support them.
Past history IS used for appeal although good cause is accepted but purely because most clients are given a 2 strikes and your out approach, for most excuses.

2 strikes? Hmmm not a concept that our dm's are familiar with. I've just received an appeal bundle for a client who failed to attend a medical in Feb 06. His FIRST medical.
He provided evidence from his GP (Med 3, Med 4 and a letter stating his physchological problems prevented him from attending), a letter from a friend stating they would accompany him to future medical assessments.
DM states that because cl was able to attend the hospital for treatment, his GPs surgery and the local office then he should have attended the medical and if his condition had deteriorated he could and should have notified medical services. DM accepts that there is NO evidence that he attended these appointments alone.
Medical Assessment was due to take place in the Centre of Liverpool.. hardly the same as attending places close by.

Cl has severe depression, anxiety, agoraphobia and alcohol dependence. Alcohol dependence was under control following a detox, but now its back out of control.

DM had a ommon sense bypass, methinks!

psychological even...Im so narked I can't spell!!

I'd be very surprised if you didn't win the appeal on that one. Totally out of order.

I'll be suicidal if I don't win that appeal!!
I just can't believe that 2 decision makers feel that its reasonable to send this to appeal. I think its a total waste of Tribunal time!!!