Pulp sang help the aged and the DWP say no we won’t help the aged! HMCTS must!

Latest from Pension Service to HMCTS attaching the no letter **/05/2023 instead of the yes letter **/07/2023. The latter is also in the papers.

I am less bothered about the kerfuffle with the letters and more so with the casual disregard for directions. I cannot understand the attitude of someone who would sign off a submission like that and fail to realise that they need also to make an application to vary the directions - you can’t just say “we don’t do that”. If the tribunal has directed it, you have to do it unless the direction is varied. Try this in the civil courts and see how long it is until the “C” word starts to get thrown around.

That said, I really do doubt that these EMP reports are going to be worth all the hassle involved in trying to obtain them.

Elliot Kent - 18 August 2023 09:23 PM

I am less bothered about the kerfuffle with the letters and more so with the casual disregard for directions. I cannot understand the attitude of someone who would sign off a submission like that and fail to realise that they need also to make an application to vary the directions - you can’t just say “we don’t do that”. If the tribunal has directed it, you have to do it unless the direction is varied. Try this in the civil courts and see how long it is until the “C” word starts to get thrown around.

Parts of HMCTS don’t appear to care about such things either! I’ve got one at the minute where the Tribunal directed that a bundle be produced and supplied to the Tribunal, appellant, and representative. My copy has not arrived. Upon going back to the Tribunal to ask them to prod the DWP for failing to comply with the direction I got the response back that “It is up to the DWP to provide the bundle please contact them” which, after I stopped swearing, caused me to send a reply back pointing out that the DWP had been given a legal instruction and needed to comply with it so please send this to a judge or similar.

Who cares about the rules anyway?

Elliot Kent - 18 August 2023 09:23 PM

I am less bothered about the kerfuffle with the letters and more so with the casual disregard for directions. I cannot understand the attitude of someone who would sign off a submission like that and fail to realise that they need also to make an application to vary the directions - you can’t just say “we don’t do that”. If the tribunal has directed it, you have to do it unless the direction is varied. Try this in the civil courts and see how long it is until the “C” word starts to get thrown around.

That said, I really do doubt that these EMP reports are going to be worth all the hassle involved in trying to obtain them.

I am less sanguine Elliot with the kerfuffle with the letters, because I don’t think its unreasonable to expect the DWP to have a grasp of the obvious or how to go about it. So I think it has social policy value worth flagging up.

Regarding the ‘casual disregard for directions’ very disappointing. But indicative of a change in culture we have seen over the years. All the more reason for challenging.

Regarding EMP’s report’s worth. I think, clearly the District Judge looking at the case does too, and our client feel it is ‘worth all the hassle’ on the facts of this particular case.

Edited for typo

My point really is that it has been directed, so they must make it happen. Whether that is logistically possible or not is unimportant. Having failed to do so, and having failed to secure variation of the direction, I would think that the next step would be an application to have them barred. That they are misleading the tribunal about the situation is just the gravy.

Elliot Kent - 22 August 2023 07:03 PM

My point really is that it has been directed, so they must make it happen. Whether that is logistically possible or not is unimportant. Having failed to do so, and having failed to secure variation of the direction, I would think that the next step would be an application to have them barred. That they are misleading the tribunal about the situation is just the gravy.

I know Elliot and I am really grateful for the points you’re making (keep on doing what you are doing).

For my part I am also really conscious of the wider social policy angle with cases like this, i.e. the wider audience. As a small basic first tier advice agency we have to play our part make the best of whatever opportunities there are to get stuff out there to a wider audience.

Erm the Secretary of State rejected the previous etc etc, so…................ and we and MP….........see latest letter.

I have put in a FOI for the elusive guidance that eluded DWP staff.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/re_guidance_on_expert_medical_re?nocache=incoming-2451296#incoming-2451296

Our 89 year-old client won his AA appeal against the DWP i.e. Respondent. See extract below from the Tribunal short decision, for which we are very grateful for.

‘The Tribunal wishes to register a concern at the inordinate delay in this appeal coming to a final hearing. This was caused by alleged difficulties around the commissioning of an EMP report as directed by the tribunal as early as October 2022.
Although one arm of the respondent department explicitly agreed to an EMP report as early as December 2022, many obstacles were then found to obstruct the production of this report. Far more energy was expended by the respondent in opposing this tribunal direction than in eventually arguing the substantive merits of the case or developing argument about the actual EMP evidence once it was finally produced. The Respondent’s institutional resistance to producing a EMP report has used up enormous amounts of judicial time and energy. This tribunal panel consider there are lessons to be learnt by those representing the respondent, in respect of representatives overriding duty to the tribunal - a duty of candour, transparency, and co-operation’.

Andyp5 Citizens Advice Bridport & District - 25 June 2024 02:16 PM

Our 89 year-old client won his AA appeal against the DWP i.e. Respondent. See extract below from the Tribunal short decision, for which we are very grateful for.

‘The Tribunal wishes to register a concern at the inordinate delay in this appeal coming to a final hearing. This was caused by alleged difficulties around the commissioning of an EMP report as directed by the tribunal as early as October 2022.
Although one arm of the respondent department explicitly agreed to an EMP report as early as December 2022, many obstacles were then found to obstruct the production of this report. Far more energy was expended by the respondent in opposing this tribunal direction than in eventually arguing the substantive merits of the case or developing argument about the actual EMP evidence once it was finally produced. The Respondent’s institutional resistance to producing a EMP report has used up enormous amounts of judicial time and energy. This tribunal panel consider there are lessons to be learnt by those representing the respondent, in respect of representatives overriding duty to the tribunal - a duty of candour, transparency, and co-operation’.

Conversely, the tribunal could have (but presumably didn’t) exercise its power to bar the respondent at a much earlier stage and proceeded on the basis of the available evidence plus a directly commissioned (and paid for) EMP report.

NAI - 26 June 2024 08:57 AM

Andyp5 Citizens Advice Bridport & District - 25 June 2024 02:16 PM

Our 89 year-old client won his AA appeal against the DWP i.e. Respondent. See extract below from the Tribunal short decision, for which we are very grateful for.

‘The Tribunal wishes to register a concern at the inordinate delay in this appeal coming to a final hearing. This was caused by alleged difficulties around the commissioning of an EMP report as directed by the tribunal as early as October 2022.
Although one arm of the respondent department explicitly agreed to an EMP report as early as December 2022, many obstacles were then found to obstruct the production of this report. Far more energy was expended by the respondent in opposing this tribunal direction than in eventually arguing the substantive merits of the case or developing argument about the actual EMP evidence once it was finally produced. The Respondent’s institutional resistance to producing a EMP report has used up enormous amounts of judicial time and energy. This tribunal panel consider there are lessons to be learnt by those representing the respondent, in respect of representatives overriding duty to the tribunal - a duty of candour, transparency, and co-operation’.

Conversely, the tribunal could have (but presumably didn’t) exercise its power to bar the respondent at a much earlier stage and proceeded on the basis of the available evidence plus a directly commissioned (and paid for) EMP report.

The dept effectively barred its self and bared its internal workings to such a degree that begged so many more questions than answers. 

For example at one point having finally acknowledged the obvious i.e. EMP visit. The excuse was we don’t have form DBD etc etc. So the Judge in question produced a list of questions for the dept to give a EMP to use.