Couple of weeks ago had a really bad appeal. Chairman in my face from the first and despite appeal lasting 11/4 hours the chair wrote hardly anything down. Blatantly obvious mind already set against the client and I had already written the leave to appeal in my head before we finished. Appeal only awarded LRC and I applied for SOR and record of proceedings. Have just received them and as suspected the record is just one side of A4. But whats really angered me is the SOR which carries the end statement

"the tribunal concluded that the appellant was neither entitled to the mobility or the care component of DLA."

The written decision on the day of the appeal was to award LRC only which was an insult. But to then state in the SOR not entitled to anything is bloody mindboggling. DLA has already been paid and it says something IMO about the competence of the chair.

I'm sure this is a situation thats happened before and addressed by some caselaw and would be grateful if anybody could point me in that direction.

Personally I'd play with a straight bat. Application for correction of accidental error in decision. Once that is or isn't sorted then off to the SSC.

Theoretically useful to lodge a complaint against the Chair but you don't know the reaction to that so tread carefully. Chair could mark your card forever more and do same with other Chairs with whom friendly and so on. For the sake of all your clients this requires some consideration. Have also had some experience of TTS sitting on complaints until outcome at SSC is known and then claiming that delayed justice is no justice at all and so complaint won't be pursued!

An interesting line!!!

I would just go for L.T.A. as this could in itself constitute an error of law. If a correction is applied for, that would give the Chair an opportunity to get off the hook easily?.

Thanks for responses which coupled with a couple of Jack Daniels in a darkened room have cooled me down. Will scrap complaint as LTA will probably do the trick. Not sure about accidental error. Unaminous decision to award LRC on day of appeal. Its the SOR thats screwy. Blooody maddening. End of rant. Thanks again

Notwithstanding that there might be other errors of law I doubt (as long as in fact she did get an award) would not amount to an error of law as errors of law must be material to the outcome to count (R(Iran) v SoS for the Home Department 2005).

That should read:

Notwithstanding that there might be other errors of law I doubt (as long as in fact she did get an award) that it would amount to an error of law as errors of law must be material to the outcome to count (R(Iran) v SoS for the Home Department 2005).

Looking for something else & just came accross this at

http://www.disabilityalliance.org/comm4.htm

CA/4297/2004: Additions to statement of reasons

Part cites English v Emery Reimgold & Strick Litd <2002> in support of this view that such an action is inappropriate for tribunals.

"We are not greatly attracted by the suggestion that a judge who has given inadequate reasons should be invited to have a second bite at the cherry."

Philip Boyd

I think I misunderstood the earlier post regarding accident thinking the decision not the sor. The sor is completely dismissive of any level of award for care or mob and I think is more than accident. Just had an email from a colleague working another part of cleveland to say they have a similar case and that involved mrc award, then sor says no award. Must be something in the water

I agree it sounds highly suspect, especially if it has happened to your colleague too, was it the same chair? It has placed you in a very tricky position, as the lrc award could be under undue additional risk if you pursue a commissioners appeal. I suppose if it were my case it would come down to how good the evidence was to support the lrc award and how good the reasons were in the SOR for 'not awarding any rate of the care comp'.

As an alternative to a complaint against the chair, you could write to the district chair highlighting both your case and your colleagues, pointing out that this is a completely unacceptable situation as it seriously undermines your clients right of appeal to the Commissioner. In fact could you ask for a set aside on the grounds of procedural irregularity which has led to an obvious unfairness to you client? (They can then draw their own conclusions as to whether it how accidental it was...)