Evidence at time of decision or at time of appeal

I am doing an appeal where a claimant was found to be ineligible for UC because of lack of good evidence of identity. The evidence was a little sketchy so although I think there was enough there I can understand why the original decision was possible.  We now have stronger evidence. My understanding is that the Tribunal judge should make the correct decision based on all the evidence in front of them rather than put themselves in the position of the original decision maker with the more limited evidence. Am I right in this? Ruth

It’s the facts at the date of decision which matter and it is perfectly permissible to prove those facts by reference to evidence which wasn’t available to the original decision maker.

Presumably your client is the same person as they were when the decision was made, so it is hard to see any issues arising on this front (c.f. a medical case where the question would be whether the new evidence speaks to the circumstances at the decision date or a subsequent change).

Thanks Elliot, that’s really helpful in getting my thinking on this clear.