I have reached new heights of confusion with this one so would be very greatful for some advice :
Client appealled an ICB decision failing her for not attending a medical. This is appeal 1.
Appeal 1 adjurned as all clients evidence showed her incapacity, not her reasons for not attending the medical. Client was given the chance to gather new evidence.
Appeals Service then sent her forms leading her to make appeal 2. She believed this to be to continue the existing appeal.
All evidence was submitted to appeal 2, client attended hearing and won.
2 months later she received notification for a hearing for appeal 1 on the day of the hearing. She had submitted no evidence, was unable to attend, and the chairman refused to adjourn following her phone call in part because she "knew there was an appeal outstanding". She lost.
Appeals service have apparently said they need to write to them to resolve this.

I do not understand how the second appeal was accepted so late, unless there has been a revised decision. Then I would have expected the first appeal to lapse.
Appeal 1 which failed included a decision date, and a no-change revision date.
Appeal 2 included only the date of the original decision.
I would have expected a second appeal on the same decision to just be invalid, as the decision would have been replaced and therefore not there to appeal, but the successful appeal does not actually say that it replaces the later revision decision.
Appeal 1 the client had no chance to win as she did not know it was still going ahead.

I am not happy to just accept that the appeals service will straighten it out, because the clients deadline for a commisioners appeal is ticking away.

Sorry to have such a very long and complicated theory. Any help appreciatted.

I assume appeal 2 was heard first, covered the same issues as appeal1 and was completely succesful. If so then all issues were decided (in the claimant's favour)by appeal 2 and when appeal 1 came up it should not have been heard - the appeal fell because it was res judicata, already decided. Your claimant's benefit should therefore be restored by appeal2 - or have I mised the point?

thanks for the reply.
That was what we thought, the nagging doubt is that appeal 2 only mentions the date of the original decision, but appeal 1 which failed mentions the later revision date as well.
Does this make any difference ?
And how on earth did this happen anyway ?
I will of course settle for an answer to the first question.

It was a no-change revision? I.e they looked again at their original decision and left it alone? If so then presumably appeal 2 dealt with all matters raised by appeal 1 and you are O.K.
I would request leave to appeal against the second appeal heard on grounds that it is res judicata and suspect that that will sort it out...

In answer to your second question - vogons? ploorans? some detail we haven't thought of?