Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
At IUC video & photo evidence not shown to client but now submitted by DWP to tribunal.
A question for the qualified lawyers amongst you?
Client was subject to IUC and only a ‘screen shot’ from 60 min surveillance video recording was shown to client. DWP now submitting the whole recording (and photos from a Facebook page also not shown at IUC) as evidence before a tribunal. Apart from this evidence (and the IUC) DWP are providing no other evidence in support of decision to remove DLA entitlement.
Tribunals aren’t governed by strict rules of evidence but can they take account of on an IUC where much of the interview was based on evidence not shown to the client during that interview?
I’m sure a tribunal will take a very dim view of this (and therefore the weight given to this evidence) but is it inadmisable as evidence if not shown at the IUC (breaks the rules governing IUCs under PACE etc?)
This is one of the most risable fraud investigation cases I’ve ever seen - according to the decision maker a claimant shouldn’t qualify for DLA HRMC if they can stand up for any length of time or drive an unadapted (Motability) car and clients own HCPs opinions (based on examinations etc) should be ignored as they don’t see claimants in their daily lives to observe their capabilities.
nothing new there then. since when did DWP Fraud know anything about PACE?
but I doubt FTT will take a huge amount of notice.
you’re better sitting and watching it with your client and taking full instructions on whatever is shown on the recording (and the facebook page).
I once had a case where a client was dibbed in by a jealous neighbour (she was driving a brand new motability car) and ended up at tribunal on various issues arising out of that (including her going swimming, which she’d been advised to do by her various medical practitioners). Sorry to say I can’t remember what the result was (it was over 10 years ago… a DLA case).
I think you’re right Peter. It’ll just be given less weight. It sometimes appears almost nothing is inadmissable nowadays. One of my favourite parts of the job though. Ripping apart preposterous IUCs.
The DWP is not legally obliged to show him the evidence at the IUC, nor reveal its source. They must however, give some indication of the basis for the evidence to any solicitor who was present acting for the claimant.
It cannot be legally excluded from the tribunal. But as Mike has said, rip it apart by destroying its credibility. And, like Mike, I’ve always rather enjoyed doing that.
To the best of my recollection any surveillance carried out by DWP has to have a certificate to say that it was lawfully authorised. Although the lack of this certificate probably can’t prevent a FTT seeing the evidence it may go some way to call that evidence into doubt.
I asked for the certificate to be admitted as evidence in one very complex overpayment case and DWP refused, just saying that there was a certificate but they would not let the Tribunal see it- which makes me wonder if the certificate has third party info on it, such as the source of reports that the claimant does not have sufficient disability to qualify. It seems to me that if there was third party info ‘naming names’ this could be redacted but the substance of the report made to DWP should remain and it seems only fair that an appellant should have all the facts put to them and be invited to comment
That case was already strongly in the appellant’s favour so I don’t know if the undisclosed certificate had much influence on the FTT’s reasoning but it may be worth exploring in the current case.
nothing new there then. since when did DWP Fraud know anything about PACE?
but I doubt FTT will take a huge amount of notice.
you’re better sitting and watching it with your client and taking full instructions on whatever is shown on the recording (and the facebook page).
I once had a case where a client was dibbed in by a jealous neighbour (she was driving a brand new motability car) and ended up at tribunal on various issues arising out of that (including her going swimming, which she’d been advised to do by her various medical practitioners). Sorry to say I can’t remember what the result was (it was over 10 years ago… a DLA case).
Well, yes, yes & yes! And the background is almost the same in my case!!
Mike & Paul - ‘One of my favourite parts of the job though. Ripping apart preposterous IUCs’ - I couldn’t possibly comment!!!
The best bit is the Facebook photos. DWP haven’t included the one whi shows both my alleged client and my actual client in the same photo. I do hope there is a PO [chortle].
Having a PO on one of these cases adds huge value on the chortle front.
Was once faced with a client on IB who was alleged to have been driving a school bus. Video evidence was certificated and showed him pulling out of the drive of his home in the school bus etc. Still photos also showed my client. At the IUC the appellant had claimed the driver was his brother. Client had appealed on the same basis that it was his brother who was the (one man band) bus driver. He stored the bus in his brothers driveway as he didn’t have the room. The appeal letter and IUC rang literally no alarm bells with DWP at all.
PO collared me outside the room to query why I was going ahead with the appeal and to lecture me on the reputational damage it could do to me to take such a hopeless case. Told him I had a witness but they were running late (the latter bit was not true at all).
Let the tribunal and PO lay into the appellant for 10 minutes and get increasingly annoyed by the helpless smirk on his face and that of his wife. Clerk, who hated the PO with a vengeance, played along and came into the room to advise that my witness had arrived. Witness walks in… jaws of tribunal and PO drop. It’s the appellants twin brother 😊
In fact of course it was the appellant. I’d allowed the tribunal and PO to quiz the twin brother for 10 minutes. We brought passports and the wife of the appellant along to verify ID beyond doubt. The brother had driver said school bus for 20 years! Nowadays one couldn’t get away with orchestrating such drama to make a point but at the time it was priceless. For the next 3 years the PO declined to appear at every appeal hearing where he understood I was the rep. The clerk, long since deceased, fessed up eventually to using it to his own ends. If the PO turned up unexpectedly he would tell him that Mr. Hughes was repping and the PO would go scuttling back to the office 😊
ROFL mike that is brilliant…..
Fantastic, worthy of Rumpole. I wish I had (ever) had the nerve to pull off something like that
Brilliant Mike!
Nowadays one couldn’t get away with orchestrating such drama to make a point but at the time it was priceless.
Maybe all the fun has gone out of this job after all? - dooh!
Oh! I forgot to mention that the same DM has (very grudgingly) awarded my client PIP at a higher rate than the DLA (on MR) such that there is no gap in the awards!
[ Edited: 27 Apr 2018 at 01:26 pm by Peter Turville ]I think you’re right Peter. It’ll just be given less weight. It sometimes appears almost nothing is inadmissable nowadays. One of my favourite parts of the job though. Ripping apart preposterous IUCs.
Hi Mike,
Perhaps, you or another might be able to help. My C is 76 year old woman in poor health, frail etc lives alone. DWP “invites” her to IUC re overstaing in NZ. Only has 2 daughter’s.
1. We attended yesterday when FI refuses to commence IUC unless C discloses passport prior to interview.
2. FI refuses to start IUC, caution C and then make statement to the effect of 1. above. FI oppressive and a bully who is concerned a taped IUC and insistence passport disclosed beforehand would show him in bad light. FI states in front of 5 witnesses, he will not conduct IUC until passport disclosed. Said he wasn’t interested in C’s poor health etc and I saw no reasonable reason for not proceeding apart that IUC fishing exercise.
3. FI refused to disclose actual allegations. I did not request disclosure of evidence although I asked to peruse evidence so I could advise C accordingly. Obviously, FI wants C to disclose evidence, which might incriminate her, which it won’t. Question is equality of arms and article 6 HRA in play possibly. Is C obliged to disclose passport.
4. My thoughts is for C to continue to withhold passport.
5.When did the limit to go out UK reduce to 4 weeks before HB/CTB and PC?
6.Any other advice and guidance would be gratefully acceptempted?