Hi

A claimant's hearing was adjourned as she provided a large amount of evidence at a late stage. The Judge directed that 'The DWP and Council will agree prior to the hearing with the Appellant's representative which evidence is agreed and will notify the Tribunals Service no later than 14 days before the date of the final hearing.' I have a meeting with HB on Wednesday. Has anyone done this or can offer advice? I presume that I agree evidence that I don't feel needs examining further. So, for example, I think the Landlord's statement gives an incorrect electricity meter reading - so I don't agree it; but can I accept the power company's statement that states that such a meter reading shows low usage? Or am I better erring on the side of caution and disputing the energy company's statement too. It is clear the Judge wants to try to shorten the evidence we wade through so I don't want to get his back up by being too cautious and looking as if I wasn't playing ball.

Thanks Liz

I'm assuming this is a s. 130/reg. 7 case?

Stictly speaking what you're being asked to do is to agree on what the evidence indicates, where possible. So the judge will be looking for something like a joint statement of what facts are agreed on and on what can be deduced/inferred from certain pieces of evidence. Will want it in writing, I'd imagine.

There's no point in disputing everything just on general principles - not only will that have the effect of getting the judge's back up, as you suggest, but also such a scatter-gun approach will have the effect of making your objections to the most serious flaws in the evidence appear less potent.

Thanks for this.

It's not a Reg 7 case though I see why you thought that. It's an allegation of cohabitation - the electricity bill relates to her ex-husband's address (ie. DWP/Local Authority are saying he hasn't been living there).

Your comments were very helpful. It still seems a bit difficult though - there are only three pieces of evidence that I want to challenge but the tenant has provided huge amounts that the DWP/LA are likely to dispute. Therefore our joint statement is likely to be the same as our submissions! The judge has called three witnesses for the hearing - including the person who rang the Fraud Line - yet I'm suprised it has got to appeal stage with the evidence cited by the DWP.

The Presenting Officer keeps referring to 'bundles of evidence' - is there some guidance I should be looking at so I know what he's talking about?

Thanks, Liz

Liz, its difficult to say without seeing the evidence.
The only evidence you can agree is the evidence that points to your clients ex living at his address. The DWP/HB will dispute your evidence that disproves their case.

You need to go through the Co-hab checklist and provide evidence/proof that your clients ex is living somewhere else and they are not acting as or seen as a couple. The burden of proof is with the DWP/HB - even if his gas/electric bill is low usage, what is the reason for this ? am assuming all bank accounts are seperate and no interaction of accounts - am also assuming that he has access or vists to your clients home poss to see the children. Who is the person who reported your client, what reason is there for this ? is it malicious or jealasy ? Normaly those who report people to the DWP/HB have an agenda and their details are never given. if the Judge has called them to the hearing as a witness, he must have some doubt - what does their statement say.

I know am asking a lot of questions, but cant answer yours without knowing what their case is made up from.

Col

Thanks for your reply.

I'm not having trouble with preparing the case but I had not come across the idea of agreeing evidence before the hearing. Think I'm ok with it now and it has helped re-confirm (in my mind) how weak the DWP case is.

The Local Authority have referred to 'bundles of evidence' so I wondered if there was guidance that uses this wording and was just going to look at it before I set off for my meeting.

Liz