regulations 29 and 35 and what to do after a half successful appeal

Hello there

This is mainly a procedural question really. Client has severe Haemophilia along with several blood borne viruses.Was found fit for work on migration from IB/IS, we appealed on the grounds that regulations 29 and 35 apply (he can’t even turn over in bed without having a severe bleed into his joints). The tribunal agreed that reg 29 applied, but in the decision notice say “no sehedule 3 descriptor applied”. In the next line they say that the tribunal “recommends that the Department does not reassess the client.”

I’m slightly confused. Is my client supposed to go on attending WFIs and doing work related activity forever? Why?

Do I appeal further, on the grounds that the chair seems to have contradicted himself - is that an error in law? Maybe a failure to take into account all the relevant facts? Or should I wait til he gets called for a WFI and do the constant putting off thing that seems to work quite well round here if someone should obviously be in the support group? It doesn’t affect his overall money as he has DLA HRC and HRM in payment.

Do the statement of reasons and record of proceedings mention the reg35 argument?

The hearing was only yesterday, so I haven’t got that far yet. but you’ve just reminded me that I was going to ask for a SoR today! Thanks!

The recommendation not to re-assess forms no part of the decision proper and carries no force of law.  Best to concentrate on the usual suspects, re – errors of law.  Insufficient findings of fact, failure to explain why they have disregarded any evidence favourable to the client, failure to explain why they’ve relied on any material evidence against the client, particularly where that evidence was put at issue by the claimant, complete mishandling of relevant evidence or applying the law incorrectly, etc.

Thanks Nevip - I know the recommendation isn’t binding, but it just it slightly confused me. There was a distinct lack of evidence against my client so I’m sure I can identify an error of law in there somewhere. They didn’t even confer after the hearing, just told us straight out after some half hearted questioning.