Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
Appointees
Anyone else finding tribunals increasingly questioning why an appellant has an appointee and requiring evidence of the appointment?
Yes, on balance a good thing though.
Yes, on balance a good thing though.
Why? I haven’t found it has been helpful to the appellant at all. What it has done is revealed that some tribunal judges in our area do not have an understanding of the appointee process. I’ve been asked if the claimant just chooses to have one. I’ve yet to come across an appointee (other that corporate) who have retained a copy of the BF57.
We usually didn’t get sent the BF57; we knew we were appointed once they started writing to us instead of the claimant.
Bad - as in it can delay things.
Good - as in where DWP have once again made an appointeeship that involved no inability to manage financial affairs on the basis of mental incapacity. I often have to assert that an appointeeship is meaningless albeit in specific types of cases.
Good - as in where DWP have been busy sending correspondence to a claimant that they have no capacity to deal with and there is in fact an appointee who ought to have received all the correspondence but no evidence to that effect in the papers.
Good - as in recoverable overpayment cases where demonstrating that there is in fact an appointee can change the argument heavily in favour of a claimant depending on the facts.
Good - as in an opportunity to explain to a tribunal (and often a Presenting Officer) what an appointee is etc.