I have an unusual case. When I received the DBU's Appeal Submission for one of my clients I realised that half the client's DLA application was missing from the pack. I managed to get the appeal tribunal postponed and the Appeal Service requested that the DWP send out the full application.

A new appeal date has been set for this friday however the DWP have admitted that they nolonger have a copy of the application form so cannot send out the full papers. About 9 sections of the form are missing including sections on washing and bathing, cooking a main meal, taking medication etc.

The application was completed by my clients Former Psychiatric Nurse and neither the client or there local mental health team have a cop of the application.
The client also specifies that he disagrees with the views of his former Psychiatric nurse on his mental health and abilities to attend to care needs.

I have never had to represent at an appeal when the DLA application is missing from the submission and therefore would be grateful for advice on how the tribunal will view this and any other tips.

My recent experience of Tribunals is that they don't pay much attention to what is in the papers, they concentrate on their "inquisitorial" role and question the cl accordingly.

If this is a straightforward application - refusal - appeal case then its probably not too much of a problem, as the above post indicates, the tribunal can operate its inquisitorial function and go back to scratch on assessing the clients entitlement on the evidence it has got and of course on your client's oral evidence.

If this appeal is about a supersession or refusal of a renewal claim it could be more interesting as the DWP may find it more difficult to show that there has been a relavent change in circumstances. Of course this might work to your clients advantage depending on the other evidence

Last time I had a similar situation the Chair adjouned to give client opportunity to fill in a new form thus allowing them to state their needs in writing because it was in the interest of naturally justice . Needless to say we didn,t argue and won later appeal.
On this point I believe the adjounment was right despite the chance to give oral evidence and our submission was in place, but nowhere had the client had the opprtunity to state his case in his own words and sign his name.