Can someone quickly refresh my memory - save me delving through the archives - can the Tribunal look at a matter which is not the subject of the Appeal?.
my client was getting low care only - as a result of a new injury (totally unrelated) he specifically put in a claim for the mobility component only, and only filled in the claim form replating to mobility.
The Secreatary of State's submission only asked the Tribunal to look at the mobility component only - it didn't raise the subject of the care component.
I reinforced this by pointing this out in our submission. However, the tribunal in it's wisdom stated that it was going to look at both components and proceeded to do so. The client felt that the care component was reasonably safe in that his condition which warrented it hadn't changed.
Result - client gets awarded the high rate care component and the care component was terminated as of today's date! The only evidence which they had to do this was what he gave them today, which seemed quite persuasive to me....

Only a quick answer and going off the top of my head (please don't ask for references!).

In short, yes. Commissioners have said that DLA is one benefit, albeit in two components and so there is nothing wrong in considering both components at an appeal. I guess it's just discretionary. Also, the decisions and appeals reg's refers to the tribunal "need not....consider circumstances.....not obtaining...". Although I don't think this applies in any great way to your case, the point is that it is also discretionary - meaning that tribunals can, if they want to, consider matters not raised in the appeal.

On the flip side, the tribunal would have to have very good reasons for intefering with the existing component if it was not specifically in dispute. I'm sure there are more than a few commissioners decisions which deal with this point, and unless the evidence was quite compelling in favour of the decision the tribunal gave, I'd say your client has good grounds for appealing further.

Thanks Tony - I had a feeling that was going to be the answer - will look at the full reasons, but client is going to make a new claim for Care component today as well....

Did you mean high rate mobility component awarded and care removed?

Unless things have changed in the caselaw, the tribunal should have:

1. Given you the option of adjourning if they decided to look at the mobility component on the day; and

2. Should establish what grounds they had for superseding the earlier decision on mobility (i.e. can't just decide to give the decision they would have given when mobility first awarded - need to establish grounds for supersession, e.g. improvement in condition). Off the top of my head, wasn't there a COA case on this (Wood)?

I meant of course if they decided to look at the care component on the day and if they wanted to supersed earlier care component decision

This is dealt with in R(IB) 2/04 (which also decided CDLA/4753/2002, CDLA/4939/2002 and CDLA/5141/2002)

Para 94 considers the discretion to look at issues not raised

'There must...be a conscious exercise of this discretion and (if a statement of reasons is requested) some explanation in the statement as to the reasons why it was exercised in the manner it was. In exercising the discretion, the appeal tribunal must of course have in mind, in particular, two factors. First, it must bear in mind the need to comply with Article 6 of the Convention and the rules of natural justice. This will involve, at the very least, ensuring that the claimant has had sufficient notice of the tribunal’s intention to consider superseding adversely to him to enable him properly to prepare his case. The fact that the claimant is entitled to withdraw his appeal any time before the appeal tribunal’s decision may also be material to what Article 6 and the rules of natural justice demand. Second, the appeal tribunal may consider it more appropriate to leave the question whether the original decision should be superseded adversely to the claimant to be decided subsequently by the Secretary of State. This might be so if, for example, deciding that question would involve factual issues which do not overlap those raised by the appeal, or if it would necessitate an adjournment of the hearing.'