A friday afternoon posting this:

What is the most bizarre thing that has happened to you in the course of an appeal?

I've arrived to find the judge and staff waiting on the doorstep as no one had the key

And, in Margate, had a tribunal clerk fall asleep in my submission and start snoring loudly (however the judge must have been awake since we won)

Once, when I was a PO, and before the PCA, went in to a tribunal with a person who had failed medical test and lost her income support. As chairman started to speak, she raised her hand to silence him, took some form of inhaler out of her bag and took some deep puffs. She then signalled that he could carry on. In fairness, she was supposed to be about 52 and looked 20 years older. Chairman then immediately allowed the appeal. As we left the room, she collapsed just outside the tribunal room door, effectively blocking the way in/out. We called an ambulance. Chairman told clerk he wanted next case to start, despite fact I was still with previous appellant, and she was lying across doorway. Being somewhat less mellow that he is now, the chairman insisted to the clerk that he wanted the next appellant to be shown into the room. Name called out; a man rose with very great difficulty from a chair in the waiting room, and proceeded to "walk", dragging one leg behind him. Couldn't get his leg over the prostrate figure of the previous appellant who was still blocking the doorway, to get into the tribunal room. Chairman eventually accepted we would all have to wait for the ambulance.

Nothing really bizarre has ever happened to me at tribunal. I’ve seen a young kid with (presumably) ADHD running riot in the waiting room and barging in and out of the hearings.

I once did an IDB appeal and as soon as we sat down the chair made it perfectly clear that whatever we had to say it would make no difference, as their minds were already made up. Needless to say the decision was tossed out on appeal quicker than you could say, “referee”!!

The one I would have loved to have seen was the incident highlighted by a social policy researcher many years ago of an unrepresented appellant, who, upon losing his appeal promptly attempted a citizens arrest of the chair, on the charge of perverting the course of justice. Priceless!

The man who sat there claiming he was having a hypoglycaemic episode and shovelling handfuls of glucose tablets into his mouth before going off for a bit of a lie down?

The child with ADHD who spilled large jug or water all over the table and had to be restrained from going under the table and untying everyone's shoelaces?

A joint reply to the tribunal training post as well.

We ran a two day course for an unnamed authority when HB review boards were introduced. All the relevant officers plus the members who'd be on the panel.

The final element was a full role-played board, with all the participants taking their parts and with us being appellant and rep.

At the end we said something like, "Normally this is where you withdraw but we'll stay here so that we can comment on your recording, findings of fact, decision making etc."

With everyone in place, the chair looked round and said, "we pay our staff very well so I'm sure that they're right, how do we write that down?"

Absolute silence apart from a little "dear God" whispered by the man from the legal department.

I have mentioned this on another thread, but one of the most bizarre I have come across was the local authority presenting officer (don't ask, I can't remember) who was bring asked to explain under which regulation the authority had suspended and then stopped the appellant's housing benefit. He said: "well of course we know about the guidelines, but when you're dealing with it in practice you just have to do what seems reasonable."
The judge was speechless.

Representing an appellant who had lost the biological function that defines a living organism.

As one Mr Palin once said about his "Norwegian blue", "its dead thats what it is".

Hardly bizzare (more embarrassing), but here's my contribution:

Was repping a very hotly disputed LTAWH decision for which a special hearing was convened. Large overpayments and significant arrears of HB/CTB were at stake. The LA came with two PO's and two witnesses - fraud investigation officers. There were obvservers from the council and from my work. Needless to say, I was somewhat nervous - not least because the council had very good cause to believe their case was water-tight.

The hearing was conducted most formally and I had the chance to cross-examine one of the fraud officers. As she was reciting her credentials to the chair, the irony of the whole situation completely overtook me and I spontaneously laughed!! I quickly averted my face and eyes and prayed for the ground to open up, whilst trying to make it look like I was struggling to contain a cough!

Fortunately, nothing was said - though I recieved a long, cold glares from the chair and the witness. Thereafter, everying proceeded smoothly and my client went on to win her appeal.

I wonder what I'd be like if I ever had an oral hearing at the upper tribunal...

I met my client outside the appeal venue for a DLA appeal. Client lost his balance and fell over whilst walking the short distance to the entrance. He was helped to his feet by a very kind man who proved to be the Chair... that was one in the bag!

Another appeal (PCA I think) where the client insisted on calling the Chair (pre judge days) 'your honour'. Same client, on being asked to describe medical history, promptly stood up and dropped his trousers so he could show the panel his scar. I shall never forget the expression on their faces as he unzipped his flies...

One back in Supplementary Benefit days when I was strongly advocating that the client should have had a higher rate weekly addition because his home was exceptionally hard to heat being exposed to the east winds, metal window frames with little insulation, etc. Just as I'd thought I'd won the Tribunal over, client announced "Well it's not THAT hard to heat Mr Bateman". Lost that one - even though client's outburst was not in accordance with his instructions about his home.

Another one some years ago I was arguing that a ten year old girl was virtually unable to walk. She sprang up and started running around the Tribunal room. My heart stopped when she grabbed the then Chairman's glass of water and threw it on the floor. I still won on the basis that she was virtually unable to walk, but could run on tip toes.

Then one of the first I did back in the late 1970s concerning a UB sanction (maximum 6 weeks then). Client (an engineer) had been dismissed because he had refused to enter a storage tank in a factory because of unpleasant (not poisonous) fumes inside it. With the help of a chemistry lecturer I obtained a small bottle of the chemical and presented it in evidence for the Tribunal to smell. All of them did, but the presenting officer refused, thus undermining his assertion that the client's refusal to enter the tank was unreasonable and thus misconduct. Client won.

My most embarrassing moment occurred many years ago when my client, a rather innocent middle aged woman, when asked how far she could walk replied "about 40 yards" then turned to me and said “that’s right isn’t it Paul”. My God, I groaned inwardly, please take me now. I hadn’t coached her, honestly.

We waited outside for the decision when the chair (a real kind and gentle man) came out and passed it to me with the words “with the best will in the world Mr Neville”. Appeal disallowed and a rather steep learning curve climbed.

I had an Attendance Allowance appeal a few years ago for an elderly man who was too frail to travel to Manchester, so I tried to have the appeal heard in his absence. The chairman refused, and adjourned for him to appear in person. When it was re-listed he still said he couldn't manage to go so I tried again to put his case at the hearing but again the chairman insisted he should be there and adjourned it again.

So on the third occasion we poured the old fellow into my car along with his wheelchair and set off. This time I got lost in Manchester and ended up getting us there three quarters of an hour late. We arrived to find that the tribunal had heard the appeal without us and had awarded the high rate of AA.

To say the PO was cross would be puttng it mildly. How we laughed!

Domicilary for Attendance Allowance. I waited outside for the Tribunal to arrive which they did apart from the disability laymember who was late. Twenty five minutes later his car turned the corner and the clerk turned to the chair and said " If that had been the rep you'd bollock him, go on tell him". Which he did.

My most bizarre was also domicilary for AA. The appellant was verry poorly and had such poor breathing that she had difficulty talking. The tribunal were clearly sympathetic from the start but the appellant surprised everyone - including me - when she denied any problems when questioned by the tribunal. The longer the questioning went on, the more resistant the appellant became to admitting any care needs. The penny dropped with me that she had convinced herself that she would be "carted off to a home" if she admitted anything which was her chief horror. In the end the chair asked me (almost pleading) for any other strong evidence.
I then remembered I had a cd in my briefacase (quite by chance) in which the commissioner (female, I think) ruled that where the other evidence was so strong, a tribunal would be obliged to disregard the appellant's evidence even if the appellant's evidence supported the DBU case.
Chair literally grabbed this cd with both hands and HRAA soon followed.

I was representing a client at a PCA appeal. When we arrived at the appeal centre we were informed that none of the lifts were working after an earlier fire alarm. The appeal centre is on the 4th floor of the building. We were told to wait in the foyer with an increasing number of other appellents who were arriving for their appeals. Those who were able to climb stairs were sent up but the rest including my client on crutches had to remain on the ground floor.

An hour came and went and the poor clerks were running up and down the stairs red faced and exhausted to meet the appellents and explain the situation. Some had their appeals postponed. Eventually a clerk came down and asked if there was any way my client could get up the stairs and why they were not able to. He then returned 10 minutes later with a decision notice where my client had been awarded 15 points for not been able to walk up and down a flight of 12 stairs. It was a long wait but it turned out well in the end!

I've remembered another one. Some years ago now.

Tribunal hearing (DLA) was just before Xmas and we had the first afternoon slot. The Panel had most definitely been on the sherry over lunch. They beamed at us beautifically throughout, nodding and smiling every time the appellant or I said anything. The high point was when the Chair proved to be wearing a novelty bow tie which, on the press of a button, rotated and played 'Jingle-bells'. Needless to say, the appellant won his appeal!

I did have a very interesting occasion in Central London (Grays Inn Road) when the fire alarm went off in the middle of a hearing and the whole building had to be evacuated - the tribunals are all on the fourth floor and the lifts don't work when there's a fire alarm. Luckily, though theer wre several tribunals on, there weren't any wheelchair users.

Everyone went out and stood under some trees in the sunshine and various people had a quick fag. Made a nice change.

Then we all ahd to go back - preferably avoiding the lifts as they were all full.

Needless to say there would have been bloody murder had he lost.

Was having a particularly stressful Tuesday afternoon preparing for an ESA mental heath Tribunal when I happened upon this thread.
Thanks guys, made me feel much better.

Here is my Tribunal story;

Had an appeal for a lady client who was disputing a living together decision. History of the case was that the couple were married previously, had divorced and both re married, both second partners had died and then the man became seriously ill. Lady was struggling to manage financially after the death of her husband so joint children asked her to move into Dads house and be his carer. She received CA as he got DLA. Attended Tribunal, appeal was allowed as they were residing in same house for reasons of care etc. Happy client, case closed and so on. Was surprised to see her back about a month later, He had received a decision stating he was living with her....hmmmm.
I had a brainwave and decided to send a copy of her Tribunal decision as evidence that these two people were not living as a couple. This was finally accepted after authority was sent. Case over?.....nope. Second case went to appeal and the L.A. sent a presenting officer. We were called into the room and sat before the same Chair that had made the first decision. Couldn't help feeling a little sorry for the P.O. who became redder and redder as the Chair explained that she had made the first decision and she had not changed her mind in the last month.

What a good topic for a Friday afternoon!

Back in the days of Mobility Allowance (when the tribunal applied a walking test) the Oxford tribunal venue was in old war time single story temporary buildings with high windows and it was very difficult to find the way in. The client who was able to jump up and down to look in through the window because he couldn't find the way in (directly at the tribunal as it happened) was not successful. Although jumping is not walking of course!

Poetic justice? - alleged living together case for IS&HB which had been investigated by the local authority fraud team. This was in the days of form A6LT which had a series of questions which covered many of the caselaw issues about l/t. The LA interviewed both the claimant and the alleged partner, but seperately and on different days and complete an A6LT for each. However, in the submission was a single A6LT which combined the answers from each interview.

On bringing this to the attention of the well respected f/t chair he preceeded to question the LA fraud officer in a polite but firm judicial manner pointing out that a tribunal was a type of court and asking why the LA thought it could present such clearly tarnished evidence to the tribunal. The fraud officer (built like the proverbial brick etc etc) began to blub like a child. Appeal allowed and a stiff letter of complaint sent by the chair to the LA.

Or the DLA client with an 'hysterical condition' who made the most dramatic (but clearly fake) faint to the ground by flinging herself from the chair in front of the tribunal who all proceeded to laugh hysterical! laughter).

Nice one, Peter! A good collection of stories!! The first one conjurs up all kinds of possibilities for humour...

Peter's last example reminds me of a chap who claimed to be an uncontrolled diabetic (well, he probably was if he normally behaved the way he did at the Tribunal). At a crucial point in the evidnce he suddenly said he felt horrible, sick and clammy and was having a hypo. He got out a large packet of glucose tablets and started to eat them, but said he was just feeling worse and worse and worse...and eventually had to be led off, still eating glucose tablets, to the first aid room. He must have eaten a whole packet before he got there. Whatever was wrong with him, he definitely wasn't hypo.

Hang on a second- hypo- means hypoglycemic- your blood sugar level is way down. Solution is to get it up- gucose tabs might be a good options

I've two examples one of which was witnessed by self and the other was witnessed by a friend.

I was represernting a client at a DAT when the issue of falls came up and in an instant he stood and advised the tribunal of how he fell over - which he proceeded to demonstrate. Unsurprisingly we lost.

A PO in the days of MATs re Mobility Allowance fell asleep during the course of a hearing in Nottingham- the chair walked quietly over to him and rapped very loudly on the desk!

Toby Lintern

back to the diabetic - one glucose tablet, yes, if he actually was hypo: 15??? Glucose gets into the blood stream very quickly (the reason for using it), so going on taking them like that wasn't doing him any good at all. He would have been way hyper within minutes.

I have also been told in all seriousness by a person with diet controlled diabetes (ie no medication) that she had frequent hypos, which is in fact impossible. Hypos are caused by medication. I think she just thought that this was what diabetics got.

I know a rehab consultant who, if people say to him that they have dizzy spells and blackouts asks in a concerned way whether they have told DVLA, because they shouldn't be driving if so. The usual reaction is "well it isn't really that bad and it never happens when I'm driving..."

Here's one:

I represented a client at a housing benefit appeal, which concerned LTAHW. The client had already sent her own appeal and statement that her boyfriend had not been living with her. I was asked to represent her relatively late in proceedings, so I had not been able to send a written submission. I took the submission with me to the hearing.

The chair (as they then were called) asked the presenting officer to state the LAs case first, as is usual. He then ignored me, turned to my client, and asked, "Well, which part of your statement do you want to change?" My poor client started spluttering and stammering. I said, we're not changing the original statement, we're adding more information to it. The chair then shouted that he wasn't addressing me. I said I appreciated that, but I hadn't had a chance to give my submission. The chair then started ranting (no exaggeration) that I was 'trying to take over his tribunal'.

Since he eventually found in my client's favour I apologised for upsetting him after the tribunal (not that I thought I had done anything wrong, but there's no mileage in offending tribunal chairs.)

I later found out from a colleague that this particular chair, when he meets a rep he hasn't seen before, always picks a fight with them. Nobody knows why.

I only hope that now they're 'judges' they get more training so that they behave in a proper judicial manner most of the time.

Blimey- that would have terrified me! Good for you for standing your ground. I'd probably have been more of a gibbering wreck than your client!

Not Friday but hey...

Early in my job in Brum I inherited a case from a departed colleague, a DLA renewal appeal. previous award due to a nasty psychotic illness. Medical evidence all said he was stable now and had stopped stalking people and pretending to rob various banks.. For a good few years.

Concerned about the prospects, although confident the existing award was safe we attended the hearing; a new panel to me and a panel I didn't know. We walked in through the door, client enthusiastically shook everybody's hand, claimed to have set up a company called "Intelligent Finance" and offered to sell them all a mortgage! I rapidly shuffled him out of the room and returned somewhat shell shocked. As soon as the door was closed the entire panel collapsed laughing.

Suffice to say he won!

Well, for a lot of us (eight inches of snow and total traffic cahos in Basingstoke as you may have seen on the news), it feels a bit like Friday today anyway. We had to close the CAB at 2 on Tuesday becasue it's in the library and they closed at 2; and today I walked the not quite a mile into town and back in fear and trepidation at the ice even in my best walking shoes with a pointed hiking stick...merry Christmas to you too!

Not a tribunal in the correct sense, but when I worked in the DSS at Toxteth, a man came in requesting an appeal against a single payment decision. Receptionist took a statement and asked him to wait. Came out of reception, had a cup of tea, went out again and told the man he had lost. Appellant walked away without any complaint.

On onther occasion, same reception staff member saw irate client asking for immediate grant for boots to start work. I think it was the nth claim in a few months. Receptionist asked him what size feet he had - "size 9" was the reply. "Sorry", receptionist replied, we've only got size 7s in". Again, decision accepted without a fuss.

Chairman that stated in a WSOR about a client 'we did not asked the appellant anything because we knew what he was going to say.'

Chairman who accussed a greiving widow of forging a letter from her late husband. There were tears.

Client who tried to claim some of the capital bequested to him had been spent on a funeral tea at a pub which that came to several thousand pounds.

And finally another WSOR where the chair stated that the appellant had coped well with them at the hearing contrary to what was claimed in a submission by a colleague. They concluded that the appellant must have reacted badly when with his rep whom they found from their experience to be 'gauche and gawky.'

PCA appeal, got punched by appellant (was it something I said?), customer exempted on basis of severe mental illness!

JSA 6 month sanction appeal, lorry driver & voluntary unemployment case. BA's (dates it) star witness was ex-employer, who proceeded under cross examination to happily admit to soldering wheels onto the lorry and tampering with the tachometer. Appellant won.

AA appeal (before DLA), alcoholism case, 10.30am hearing, appellant made a pass at me and the doctor on the tribunal, got higher rate!

I had a client who attended a hearing with my written representation. We were trying to get her high mob DLA, as she had described to me problems with her walking mostly related to an "unusual swelling or growth" behind her knee that made it hard to bend her leg.

She lost her appeal, and I asked for a SOR as I couldn't work out why. Apparently she had "appropo of nothing, and unprompted" lifted her leg with one hand and hefted it onto the table to show it to the panel. The "swelling" was described, in slightly more florid terms, as due to the client being obese and therefore having fat legs.

DLA egg all over my face.

Extreme obesity is very disabling and can lead to very restricted mobility, especially linked to breathlessness and fatigue - so not necessarily a reason for failing to get DLA.

Thu 13-May-10 12:54 PM by stainsby

Remark from chair (this was in the days before they were called judges) when the client did not turn up. " Your clients case on the facts has no merit, but your legal argument does and so I am allowing the appeal"

Not so much bizarre as amusing. At appeal the other week the chair said to me at the outset (client had failed to show-turned up later: another story) "about Mr.......apart from being a Manchester United fan, there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with him".

Paul,

Your client was maybe late because being a Man Utd fan he assumed everything worked on Fergie time rather than on proper time so he could just show up when he wanted!

Hi John

I like that. He didn't even offer an explanation either although he had been up long enough to have 3 cans of lager. It was a 10:00 tribunal. Actually he seemed a fairly nice guy. Just had lots of anxiety issues.

Isn't that oxymoronic Paul a Manure fan being a fairly nice guy?

My trick cyclist has told me that I have got to stop seeing the worst in people and be more generous of spirit otherwise I'll never get better. Om! Om! Om!