Inconsitent information provided   by client

cluient signed 3 docs giving slightly   different details re circumstances for MTB claim she signed but another composed doc- hearing statement of reasons is critical of her inconsistency.

Any thoughts as to how to take matter to UT the   liability for the mistakes   lie with another organisation who have   not formally acknowledged their responsibility ( they wrote the docs which she signed)

Did she sign them knowing their contents?

This is   not certain the member   of staff no longer carries   out those duties, i would have explained   it had it   been   me but   I suspect she was told the contents were accurate and that   it was   not explained verbatim

Was client questioned by the tribunal on why the different forms had different info?

If they were then that was the appropriate time for them to state that they were helped with the forms and weren’t aware that incorrect information had been recorded.

If they weren’t questioned about it then maybe you have some grounds for appeal - it seems very harsh to me for the tribunal to draw conclusions about the client’s reliability without giving them the opportunity to give an explanation for the inconsistencies in the forms.

It is a straight forward error of law for a tribunal to decide the matter against the claimant on material points that were not put to him in evidence.  However, the tribunal doesn’t have to put to him the exact terms of the information he gave in, say, a benefit claim form, as long as it has questioned him concerning those matters and made proper findings of fact.  On the other hand, if there is something in a document in evidence which goes to the very heart of a claimant’s truthfulness or credibility, or would clarify an assertion or fact crucial to the outcome, then the tribunal should put that matter directly to him for clarification or rebuttal.  Otherwise it risks falling into error.

I once had a case where an adviser from another organization had got the client to sign a blank DLA form and then filled it in in his absence.  At tribunal the disability member proverbially waved the claim form in my client’s case, trying to destroy his credibility.  I managed with the help of the Chair (as then was) to have the entire form discredited and disregarded quite swiftly and no more of it was heard for the rest of the hearing.  Incidentally, the medical member never mentioned it at all.  The appeal was allowed.

Plenty of caselaw knocking about saying a tribunal actually don’t have to put their concerns about credibility to the appellant in all cases so it’s far from a foregone conclusion that there’s an error of law there. The issue really comes to the fore only in cases of gross exaggeration where the appellant ought to be given the opportunity to respond an assertion that they are in effect deliberately lying.

However, I have frequently used the de minimis arguments at tribunals with success i.e. discrepancies in evidence from the same person are more the norm than the exception and the scale of the differences is what matters rather than the fact there are differences. This works surprisingly well in DLA cases for example where you might have a claim that says 20m; a GP report that says 40m; a consultant that says 50m and then the evidence on the day is 30m.

On paper there is a world of difference between 20m and 50m. In practice there is considerable research evidence that people struggle to estimate distance properly and that such differences are not evidence of a credibility issue but within the normal range of expected answers. Thus the differences are negligible and should not be at issue.

They were not asked directly just   pointed out to them that the doc at p. contradicts what is on p. -they were told by the person who wrote the doc that it was accurate

“Plenty of caselaw knocking about saying a tribunal actually don’t have to put their concerns about credibility to the appellant in all cases so it’s far from a foregone conclusion that there’s an error of law there.”

I think we might be at cross purposes here.  I wasn’t referring to credibility as such but to material facts.  So if I say in a document that I contribute to the cost of a child (in a CB, who’s responsible for a child, case) and the tribunal doesn’t question me about it then that is an error of law.  I know that’s an extreme example but it illustrates my point.  If it’s not material then it won’t be an error not to question me on it.