Top 10 worst decisions of all time?

Just thought I would share this one with you, which has just made it into my personal top 10.

Client has been notified of a recoverable overpayment of IR ESA (failure to disclose partner’s earnings). As per usual, a £50 CP has been added to boot.

Client didn’t claim IR ESA until her CB ESA expired. We assisted her with the ESA3. Leaving aside the fact that her husband’s (part time work) income details were on the form (which we have a copy of) and his wage slips were included with the completed form (and subsequently returned to client) the entire period of the alleged overpayment is prior to the start date of the IR ESA claim. Not only that, the DWP has offset the arrears due from the IR ESA claim against the overpayment…

A few years back a friend of mine was refused JSA because, allegedly, he was dead.

Turned out there’d been a hint of identity theft going on but he had the letter in his hand; standard form refusal “because you are dead”.

I was itching to rep it at Tribunal…

No doubt DWP are also prosecuting your client for benefit fraud. We’ve seen cases where they prosecute in cases where the evidence is equally ****!

I currently have a decision that spends a page or two describing why the tribunal decided to go ahead in the absence of the appellant. The appellant loses. The decision refers to no specific evidence and makes not a single finding of fact. Not one. Not even a hint of one. Staggeringly, two set asides and two complaints have failed. Liverpool brilliantly decided I must have made a mistake when I applied for leave to appeal and sent it to London, but only some of it.

I have also had AA awarded for someone on the basis of a change of circumstances. The change being that they had died!

How about the JSA claimant who has been sanctioned because they only completed 61 of their 62 “required” actions?

Oh, and the claimant treated as having left “voluntarily without just cause” after being assaulted (and I’m being polite there) by her manager. Unbelievably I had to take that to appeal.

It works both ways though… One of the worst EMP reports -very possibly by a doctor who also, briefly, sat on Tribunals- went to huge lengths to explain how the claimant displayed “cultural overlay” and there was nothing medically wrong with her. A more racist report I have never seen.

The DM saw the essays written on each page, must have though “bloomin hell she’s knackered, look at all that detail” and awarded high rate everything indefinitely.

The DM saw the essays written on each page, must have though “bloomin hell she’s knackered, look at all that detail” and awarded high rate everything indefinitely.[/quote]

I don’t think that’s the reason the claimant was awarded top whack.

The Department will do practically anything to avoid having to defend the indefensible at tribunal.  We had a case in which a document reproduced in the SoS’s submission in a LCW appeal had been redacted by covering it over before photocopying.  We asked for Directions for the production of the original document, and a Judge issued Directions for the appearance of a Presenting Officer with the claimant’s file at the oral hearing.  Two hours before the hearing we received a telephone call to say that the decision had been revised and the client placed in the support group.  (And we only argued for WRAG.)

I have opened a letter from DLA Warbeck House this morning informing me that two of my clients are DEAD. Of course I have called them and they are very much with us, thankfully. DLA wish to see their death certificates, I informed them clients are not dead but breathing and at home. They demanded again the death certificates and I informed them again that they are alive. So am going to do a swear this afternoon and then fax it across to DLA.

Incredible.

I have a current DLA overpayment case , (whch is also going as a prosecution) where the claimant’s DLA stopped as he had surgery and got better.

Only trouble is that the surgery was actually some months AFTER the date they say he got better!

To be fair there is some evidence about the date of the surgery but it is no more than a passing reference in a doctors letter and is wrong.  In fact the claimant even told them the proper date during his IUC. 

Given the seriousness of the case (very large overpayment) and the fact that the claimant is also going to be prosecuted in the Crown Court I find it quite worrying that, despite the IUC, no one from DWP seems to have made any real attempt to get the date confirmed. If they had done so the claimant may not have wanted to appeal to a Tribunal and no one would have had to do more than double check the amount. The claimant may have also felt less inclined to plead ‘not guilty’ to the criminal charge!