I’ve currently got a PIP case at the UT. The DM has cited a three judge UT decision on 24/11/16 hearing cases CSPIP/97/16, CSPIP/106/16 and CPIP/1598/16 but I can’t find it anywhere. Can anyone else?
CSPIP/97/2016 & CSPIP/106/2016 are still listed as pending on the UT website - so definitely not published yet, though may have been decided (I am aware from a UT case I had this year that there seems to be some problem with the England and Wales UT office knowing exactly what is going on with Scottish cases - so Judge Jacobs said, anyway). Effectively, this can mean the SoS as a party to the appeals is aware of the outcome before the E&W UT.
CPIP/1598/2016 is not listed as linked to those two - unsurprisingly as it wouldn’t be heard by a Scottish panel, surely?
Does the DWP citation give away what has been decided by the UT? I have a few cases to be heard early in the new year where the main issue is supervision and danger so it would help to have an idea what has been decided.
No. the DM makes no indication of what the issues are at all. But my case is a supervision issue on cooking by a person who has seizures, epileptic or otherwise.
Perhaps stating the obvious, but if the DWP cite an unreported decision in proceedings, you’re perfectly entitled to require them to provide a copy of it.
indeed, and if they don’t how can the tribunal rely on it?
I know. Permission to appeal has been granted and the caselaw cited is in the DM’s response. I have cited a UT decision on a previous case of mine. The response rejects that by citing and enclosing an earlier UT decision (which the judge in my previous UT decision-was well aware of, and still concluded in my client’s favour in that case), completely distinguished, and which doesn’t address the legal point I’ve raised at all. It then concludes with the reference to the three judge UT decision I referred to in my original post. Extremely annoying.
Per Judge Mesher in a case decided on 2 December:
22. Since the decision of the tribunal of 7 January 2016 has to be set aside on the supersession issues, there is no need to await the decision of the three-judge panel in appeal on file numbers CSPIP/97/2016 and CSPIP/106/2016 on the issue of the relationship between asking whether an activity can be done safely and the effects of supervision. The Upper Tribunal hearing in those appeals, and some other associated cases, took place last week. The decision should therefore be available before the rehearing by a new tribunal in the present case takes place.
So I think the 24/11 date must have been for the hearing rather than the decision
Did the three Judges make a decision?
Did the three Judges make a decision?
still waiting as far as I know
CPIP/1599/2016 (not 1598) is ours. It was conjoined with CSPIP/97/2016 and CSPIP/106/2016. The oral hearing was on 24/11/16 and the decision has not yet been issued. The Scottish UT office have told me the decision is not expected before mid-February so we are due for it any time now.
So going back to the OP - the SoS in nevip’s case is/was citing ‘caselaw’ from a yet to be decided case?
Just read this on Benefits and work website. Can’t find anything on Rightsnet. Does anyone know about all this. Does it mean the three judge panel ruled more in line with the regs and in the favour of claimants with MH problems being considered for descriptors 11d and 11f and what is this statutory instrumentbeing talked about.
Even by this government’s standards it’s a shockingly cruel move.
Last month a tribunal of judges ruled that claimants with mental health conditions such as severe anxiety have a right to claim even the higher rate of PIP for help with going outdoors.
It was a decision that put an end to years of the DWP deliberately misinterpreting the law. It meant that many thousands of people with serious mental health conditions finally had a chance to gain a little bit more independence.
So the government acted with remarkable speed.
Bypassing the social security advisory committee, who are supposed to get the chance to comment on all changes to social security law, they published a statutory instrument that will reverse the judges’ decision.
In an effort to justify overturning the judges’ ruling, Tory policy supremo George Freeman mocked as “bizarre” the idea that claimants with mental health conditions should be eligible for PIP. Instead, he said, PIP should only be for “the really disabled people who need it.”