Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
CDLA/2222/2013. Fraud and Video Evidence
This is one of my cases. A is a 63 year old man with generalised arthritis, diabetes and periforal It’s already been heard twice . Both times the Tribunal was biased in my opinion. The fraud offices only disclosed video evidence that favoured their case. Eighteen minutes over neatl 6 months. Most of it was in the morning when the appellant left his house got in his car after walking 17 yards and then walked slowly into a leisure centre. This totalled 170 paces as measured by the fraud officer. Note “paces” No consideration was given to the fact he stops at least 4 times during that walk.the only time stopping was mentioned was when the FO alleged the appellant only stopped to watch birds
He only uses the pool, however it was alleged he used the gym because they had CCTV allegedly showing the him using the gym. As he pays monthly he is swiped. The same member of staff regularly swiped him recording he was using the gym as well as the pool and sauna. Complaints were made to senior management within the LA. The Realised there errors and apologised to the appellant copying in the FO.
I then asked for a copy of the CCTV footage, only to be informed that it might not be the appellant, therefore they would not disclose this. That’s still the case now.
When the bundle was drawn up the CCTV was mentioned but not disclosed. The DM included an allegation that it probably wasn’t the appellant but he had lent his card to someone unlawfully. I am trying to work this one out. This reflected the FOs statement. There was no record of the appellant attending on that date. Notwithstanding this, it is impossible for any one to know that a customer was allowing another to use his card. The deduction from this is that if a person who happens to look like another customer he must haved the car unlawfully. It’s absurd.
The appellant is an experienced welfare rights worker who is known by the tribunals in Liverpool. This is preventing him from getting a fair tribunal. I am looking for a barrister to run the case because it could go on forever. In my opinion the only way this will end. Is with a win. There is a plethora of medical evidence by Consultants, GPs. Nurses etc. He he nearly died on the table in 2008.
Please let me know your opinions on 2222/13 and the above.
Thanks in anticipation of your posts.
“The fraud offices only disclosed video evidence that favoured their case”.
How do you know this?
Why do you think he’d not get a fair hearing just because he’s a rep’? I wouldn’t be worried if it was me. Are you at the permission to appeal stage and if so has it been granted?
CDLA/2222/2013 is the case. It’s way past the permission stage that was some time ago.
As far as this case is concerned I have been with him on both occasions. You ask what leads me to believe he won’t be given a fair hearing. One bad tribunal is a mistake, two is a trend. Most reps can tell the difference between incompetence and bias
I sat on tribunals for about 10 years, experiencing numerous doctors’ judges’ and wing members’ prejudices. In fact I found that this was the norm, rather than the exception.
. For example, there is a DQM who sits practically every day in Liverpool and is not too claimant friendly. This is too cosy. It is no coincidence that very few cases are won when she is sitting unless there is a judge who appellant friendly. Because the DQM is retired therefore £400.00 a day is very important income to the DQM. Feels has to justify existence which perceives on side of DWP. A LA ATOS.
Maybe these are obvious comments but here goes
1. If you feel he wont get a fair hearing in the area he worked/lived in ask for it to be held somewhere else .Personally I doubt he wont get a fair hearing I suspect what you see was because we all get that sense with almost every client
2.If your client wasnt at the leisure centre on the day in question where was he , maybe get some evidence on that
3.Is it illegal to use someone elses pass at a leisure centre ( check small print) I dont think so
4.Would someone lend their car and pass probably unlikely but has he ever done so
5. presumably this is about an overpayment or a removal of benefit perhapes some evidence of what he does do in addition to swimming (which many clients do use as a good form of treatment) in fact in some areas it can be prescribed by their GP
6. send a request to the tribunal before the next hearing for disclosure of the CCTV if they wish to use it as evidence if that isnt done then the tribunal should ignor it or at worst treat it as unsubstantiated (my experience of CCTV evidence even if its still exists is you probably cant tell who it is anyways)
7.Does your client use the gym ever , if so then be prepared to counter that with why many gyms require a test before people can use them
Maybe these are obvious comments but here goes
1. If you feel he wont get a fair hearing in the area he worked/lived in ask for it to be held somewhere else .Personally I doubt he wont get a fair hearing I suspect what you see was because we all get that sense with almost every client
2.If your client wasnt at the leisure centre on the day in question where was he , maybe get some evidence on that
3.Is it illegal to use someone elses pass at a leisure centre ( check small print) I dont think so
4.Would someone lend their car and pass probably unlikely but has he ever done so
5. presumably this is about an overpayment or a removal of benefit perhapes some evidence of what he does do in addition to swimming (which many clients do use as a good form of treatment) in fact in some areas it can be prescribed by their GP
6. send a request to the tribunal before the next hearing for disclosure of the CCTV if they wish to use it as evidence if that isnt done then the tribunal should ignor it or at worst treat it as unsubstantiated (my experience of CCTV evidence even if its still exists is you probably cant tell who it is anyways)
7.Does your client use the gym ever , if so then be prepared to counter that with why many gyms require a test before people can use themAnswers
The character of A is sound.
1. Point taken
2. He wasn’t at the leisure centre that day. Every time a customer, paying a monthly fee, cannot access the facilities without getting his card swiped at the reception. On the day he is alleged to have used the gym. Hhis card was not swiped, proved by the lack of an electronic record relating to this date from the leisure centre. Initially it was put to the appellant by the FO who alleged conclusive evidence by way of CCTV. . Throughout the iUC the FO continually used the term “gym” even though A objected to its use because he has never used the gym. In my opinion this was deliberate to try to catch A out. His disability. Once a complaint was made to the leisure centre about incorrect swipes and an apology was received. The FO retracted the allegation of use of the gym via a vis the CCTV, there being no record of his card being swiped that day. However, the FO then alleges even though it was not A. it was probably somebody he had leant his card to . This involves “impossible assumptions” because A wasn’t in the centre that day. No evidence of A attending the leisure centre that day exists. To claim that A lent his card to somebody else would only be possible if there was evidence he attended the leisure that day.
The leisure centre is very busy with it being used by several people at most times. It opens for 70 hours per week on average. The CCTV footage tots up to 300 hours a month.
The only way a person who looks like A could be found amongst the CCTV footage would be by searching through the endless hours of CCTV. In nutshell the CCTV doesn’t exist because it never existed in the first place.
CDLA/2222/2013 answers your other questions..