Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
8 mins Video Surveillance removes DLA mobility.
The DM in his submission states that on a certain date video surveillance was obtained, which was 19 minutes long. The video surveillance put to the tribunal only amounted to 6 minutes. In the surveillance log for the same day it reports that there were no sightings of my client nor his car???????
Also on another day it reports that some of the surveillance has been disclosed.
Before the IUC, the FOs told his solicitor that they had clear evidence of him using the gym. They questioned him about the gym but have never disclosed the video evidence. They say on review it is not my client. There is no way my client could use the gym because of his disabilities and i know him well. i have had him as a client for over 25 years. Although the DWP now admit it wasn’t him, they allege it was someone he lent his pass to which of course is incredible but casts doubt on his character.
Wow. Plenty to get your teeth into there. Does he even have a gym pass? presumably you could request details of the gym. The character of the DM and FOs certainly at issue here.
He has a pass which would allow access to the gym. The head manager has apologised for informing the DWP that he used the gym. The staff know him as a regular who never uses the gym.
He has a pass which would allow access to the gym. The head manager has apologised for informing the DWP that he used the gym. The staff know him as a regular who never uses the gym.
I’m intrigued now. He’s a “regular” who doesn’t use the gym? So, er, what does he do with that pass?
Well, it’s a leisure centre so there’s presumably other facilities (many of my disabled clients swim regularly, for example, or attend exercise sessions run specifically for people with physical disabilities).
We have a case at the moment where clients GP referred him to a local leisure centre for specific weight loss exercise classes under a local scheme. DWP now trying to argue that attending the classes was incompatible with the award of DLA following surveillance footage of walking from disabled parking to the entrance (but not of the classes!) and, for example, the distance from the bay to the class greatly exaggerated by the DWP (it has now been measured!). Alleged overpayment £10K+. SSWP case built on a house of cards! Do they never learn?
He has a pass which would allow access to the gym. The head manager has apologised for informing the DWP that he used the gym. The staff know him as a regular who never uses the gym.
I’m intrigued now. He’s a “regular” who doesn’t use the gym? So, er, what does he do with that pass?
Swimming and sauna, pays monthly off peak pass. The gym is included because paying monthly for entrance is not available without gym.
The DWP measured distance as 128 steps which they converted to yards.
No, because new evidence might emerge at the interview which would need to dealt with on its own merits.
What if it can be proved that the fraud officers and possibly the DM have falsified evidence. In my opinion once the video has been deemed to be inadmissible, it leaves the DWP without the proof needed to review and supersede the original decision.
No, because new evidence might emerge at the interview which would need to dealt with on its own merits.
What if it can be proved that the fraud officers and possibly the DM have falsified evidence. In my opinion once the video has been deemed to be inadmissible, it leaves the DWP without the proof needed to review and supersede the original decision.
Think it likely it would still be admitted but given no weight. There is no clerical process in place that I can see which deals with the omission of evidence. As a consequence most judges are pragmatic and will admit but weigh negligibly. To be honest I have no problem with that.
Allegations of falsification can be dealt with via the complaints process and, depending on the circumstances, a client may be well advised to get legal advice re: that specific issue.
And, the tribunal can simply decide that no supersession ground has been made out.
Personnaly I would be very wary of arguing that evidence is inadmissible given that strict rules of evidence don’t apply at tribunal. I suspect many judges would not thank a rep. who was trying to get an appeal allowed on such technicalities rather than by an argument on the evidence, facts, burden of proof etc. Remember tribunals are used to hearing cases where the evidence presented by DWP in support of this type of case is so poor.
I would suggest it is far better (unless it is a most exceptional case) to simply demolish the evidence and the facts presented by the DWP. Point out irrelevant questions in an IUC that fail to address anything relevant to the benefit qualifying criteria etc. Again if there is indication that DWP fabricated evidence simply explain why it is argued it has been fabricated. Tribunal will then determine what weight (if any) to give the evidence presented by DWP.
For example, some years ago when DWP used form A6LT in alleged LT cases my client and alleged partner were clearly interviewed individually at dates 2 wks apart. DWP and LA fraud investigators then combined their responses onto a single A6LT form which was then presented as the main evidence before the tribunal (both fraud officers attended as witnessess). When I pointed this out to the f/t chair at the hearing he very politely tore a strip of the LA fraud officer who had undertaken the combining for presenting the evidence in such a way that it appeared to have been obtained at single interview. The fraud officer was reduced to floods of tears (you had to be there - built like the proverbial brick ****house with tattoos to match!).
In the case mentioned in post above DWP arguing client misrepresented care/mobility needs on a renewal claim based on weight lost at the exercises classes (evidence shows client did not lose weight until they changed the type of exercise undertaken at the classes). None of which demonstrates any change in their car/mobility needs at any time, let alone before the renewal claim which was made several years previous to any weight loss.
Also have a current L/T case where the DWP case is built on credit reference agency reports that alleged partner made two credit applications from clients address (one before the alleged LT period) and for part of the period alleged partner was in prison!
How many unrepresented claimants have cases built against them and fail to challenge / lose their appeal based on such poor evidence from DWP?
Good post Peter. I tend to veer in the opposite direction on 1 issue, which is that I’ve always trusted tribunals to get to grips with technical arguments before they look at evidence. Latter isn’t relevant if former isn’t addressed properly and always gives an out in terms of errors of law. That said, I know what you mean.
Just been discussing an interesting case!!!
Video of client walking and then queing suggesting change of circs. allegedly re: mobility. Client was filmed at… the tribunal venue for their last appeal!!! Person not yet a client. I am encouraging them to be so. Oh, where to start!!!
Mike - I wouldn’t put anything passed them!
This tread is going to sound like my personal memoir soon - many many years ago when I worked in a benefit office fraud officers were located in the local offices. I worked on the fraud section for a couple of years (I was a CO) undertaking lost / not received giro / order book interviews (from little old ladies who had lost it down the back of the sofa through to poss. fraud). Back then fraud offcers thought and acted like they were in the Sweeny (John Thaw before he became Morse for younger viewers). I witnessed some truly apalling interviews conducted by the fraud officers (often after they had been in the pub at lunch time with offcers from the local nick with whom they felt they were best mates!). I don’t suppose the training or control over fraud offciers has improved since those heady way off days at the DHSS! That office was next to the furniture shop which was gutted in last years Tottenham riot! - I guess it had long since ceased to be a benefit office though.
The case is with the Commissioners oops UT, I have asked them to decide on the evidence available or have the video removed from the evidence. The video has been cobled together, by letting a tribunal see it prejudices my client’s case. Tribunals have become more anti-client since 2010. Any reason they find to dismiss appeals they do. This video evidence is fraudulent by the DWP. In my opinion it is nonsense to allow a fraudulent document to be presented to the tribunal especially as this is crucial to the whole DWP case. If the commissioner allows it to go back with the video then this is tantamount to allowing the DWP, Fraud Officers, carte blanche to falsify as much evidence as they see fit. This client is still under threat of prosecution, therefore if the video as allowed to be used, although it would be ruled out by a criminal court, I have no doubt that part of the evidence against the client would be a mention that he lost the tribunal. Hence DWP roved he was “guilty”
Personnaly I would be very wary of arguing that evidence is inadmissible given that strict rules of evidence don’t apply at tribunal. I suspect many judges would not thank a rep. who was trying to get an appeal allowed on such technicalities rather than by an argument on the evidence, facts, burden of proof etc. Remember tribunals are used to hearing cases where the evidence presented by DWP in support of this type of case is so poor.
I would suggest it is far better (unless it is a most exceptional case) to simply demolish the evidence and the facts presented by the DWP. Point out irrelevant questions in an IUC that fail to address anything relevant to the benefit qualifying criteria etc. Again if there is indication that DWP fabricated evidence simply explain why it is argued it has been fabricated. Tribunal will then determine what weight (if any) to give the evidence presented by DWP.
For example, some years ago when DWP used form A6LT in alleged LT cases my client and alleged partner were clearly interviewed individually at dates 2 wks apart. DWP and LA fraud investigators then combined their responses onto a single A6LT form which was then presented as the main evidence before the tribunal (both fraud officers attended as witnessess). When I pointed this out to the f/t chair at the hearing he very politely tore a strip of the LA fraud officer who had undertaken the combining for presenting the evidence in such a way that it appeared to have been obtained at single interview. The fraud officer was reduced to floods of tears (you had to be there - built like the proverbial brick ****house with tattoos to match!).
In the case mentioned in post above DWP arguing client misrepresented care/mobility needs on a renewal claim based on weight lost at the exercises classes (evidence shows client did not lose weight until they changed the type of exercise undertaken at the classes). None of which demonstrates any change in their car/mobility needs at any time, let alone before the renewal claim which was made several years previous to any weight loss.
Also have a current L/T case where the DWP case is built on credit reference agency reports that alleged partner made two credit applications from clients address (one before the alleged LT period) and for part of the period alleged partner was in prison!
How many unrepresented claimants have cases built against them and fail to challenge / lose their appeal based on such poor evidence from DWP?
Forgive me if I have misunderstood the detail of your case. Is the point that the video evidence presented only comprises excerts from the full recording(s) (presented by Gary Linacre with expert analysis by Alan Hansen?) and this is the issue - can DWP be allowed to provide only extracts when it is clear that there is more?
Hopefully the UtT would direct that the full recording must be disclosed as evidence and then considered accordingly if referred back to FtT? I can see similarities with the issue raised in CE/829/2012 - failure to provide evidence from previous WCA may be a breach of natural justice under Art. 6 of the European convention on Human Rights.
Yes, the two major points are that the DWP presented 6 minutes of video evidence, depicting 6 “separate” incidents. the DM in his submission states there are 19 minutes taped on one date. However, the written surveillance log for the same day records that there was no sign of my client in a 5 hour period. Therefore not only was the video evidence edited, it wasn’t taken on the day submitted by the DWP. Five out of six the excerpts are of the same circumstances. I think I may have found why this is.
Forgive me if I have misunderstood the detail of your case. Is the point that the video evidence presented only comprises excerts from the full recording(s) (presented by Gary Linacre with expert analysis by Alan Hansen?) and this is the issue - can DWP be allowed to provide only extracts when it is clear that there is more?
Hopefully the UtT would direct that the full recording must be disclosed as evidence and then considered accordingly if referred back to FtT? I can see similarities with the issue raised in CE/829/2012 - failure to provide evidence from previous WCA may be a breach of natural justice under Art. 6 of the European convention on Human Rights.