No DLA due to skunk use

The evidence of depression was via a letter from GP copy attached.

I am thinking there are a few areas of issue;
- how did Tribunal determine he was not addicted?  (especially as he is being seen by the Turning Point team)
- how did the Tribunal determine the effects of skunk are ‘transient’ ?  (especially considering his use for 22 years - during the time his brain was developing - and there is national evidence that the neurotransmitters of the brain are effected due to the THC sitting in cells)
- the tribunal’s WSOR states ‘Findings of Fact - the appellant: suffered from depression’
- there is no evidence the Tribunal determined which problems arose from the skunk use and which arose through mental health issues.

All the above are IMO can be attributed to insufficient fndings of fact. The fact that his advocate was not included in the process could arguably have led to unfairness.

Chaos

What type of metal health advocate did he take with him? eg IMCA, IMHA etc.
Is your client involved with secondary mental health services?

Client is involved with CMHT, Turning Point (drug/alcohol), GP and his advocate was from MIND.

Hi Dan

Thanks for your post, I was looking forward to a challenge (made a change from the usual arguments) however the client has decided it’s not worth it - I blame lacking motivation! - so my research re; additction and skunk use, DLA etc etc have amounted to nothing. I suppose at least I have learnt to avoid skunk :-)

Chaos