Forum Home → Discussion → Work capability issues and ESA → Thread
Tribunal holds, ” Alcoholism is a lifestyle” choice
The above phrase was used in the written reasons in respect of a 31 y.o. male alcoholic.mLeveson censured me because I argued that this was bigotry and lacked objectivity from a judge and doctor sitting on an ESA tribunal. At best it indicates a training need. As far as I am concerned these type of prejudiced subjective views ought to be resigned to history. To suggest an alcoholic or any other addict has any choice in the matter is outrageous. Leveson also held that there is nothing else in the evidence to suggest the appellant has limited capability for work or work related activity. What happened to Charlton?
As far as I am concerned this aptly examples the growing prejudices that most tribunals exhibit against appellants nowadays. The fact that Leveson censured me for saying so, only confirms my point of view. We reps put in a lot of hard work for our appellants. Is it too much to expect a tribunal to be unbiased and objective. I am considering a JR. Anyone know a good barrister. End of rant!!!
unfortunately tribunals can say that a client “chooses” to drink. as long as they have properly looked at all the circumstances of the individual client. thankfully I have found that when tribunals say this they often fail to properly record their reasons for the decision they have reached.
Thanks for the quick response,mI agree but when the tribunal does state this, it is demonstrating unlawful discrimination against an ill or disabled person. The WHO classifies alcoholism as a disease. There may be a debate about this but not by a tribunal.
Thanks for the quick response,mI agree but when the tribunal does state this, it is demonstrating unlawful discrimination against an ill or disabled person. The WHO classifies alcoholism as a disease. There may be a debate about this but not by a tribunal.
I think the problem is first the tribunal need to accept that it is a disease rather than a choice which is where the weighing of evidence comes in to allow them to make that decision.
I cant think of any cases I have had where I would have said a client was “choosing” to drink but I suppose in theory such a person could exist.
there was a recent upper tribunal decision where it was said it had to be distinguished between taking a small glass of beer before going to work or drinking a more substantial amount. I don’t know about the upper tribunal judges bosses but neither would wash in any job I have ever been in.
See CSE/496/2012 ...
meanwhile .... Edinburgh Council is denying emergency hardship payments to tenants affected by the bedroom tax if they spend too much on non-essential items such as cigarettes and alcohol.
meanwhile .... Edinburgh Council is denying emergency hardship payments to tenants affected by the bedroom tax if they spend too much on non-essential items such as cigarettes and alcohol.
Alcohol causes disabilities therefore this might be unlawful discrimination.m
meanwhile .... Edinburgh Council is denying emergency hardship payments to tenants affected by the bedroom tax if they spend too much on non-essential items such as cigarettes and alcohol.
If anyone’s got a hand on these cases Stephensons are actively looking for examples to litigate. Our erstwhile contributor Ryan Bradshaw has asked me to canvas for examples…
It wouldn’t surprise me if most Councils are applying similar criteria. It may be an idea for Stephensons to put in FOI requests to larger authorities or check the criteria online.