I *think* most posters know that the majority of my work is for LAs. However, every now and again, I advise and even rep for clmts. In that context, I decided to share this and offer a little empathy with claimants and/or reps who encounter "unhelpful" Tribunals.
Today, representing a clmt at Tribunal (HB overpayment), I think it can safely be said that I encountered the Tribunal from hell. The Tribunal summarily dismissed the appeal as "vexatious" (eh?). The dismissal prevented me from putting forward ANY of the arguments that I had prepared - no opportunity was given for further points / arguments to be submitted before the dismissal. I was also accused (& I think that is in context) of refusing to answer "reasonable questions". Which is all well and good, except they related to matters the Tribunal itself had already ruled were not before it..... ho hum....
The conduct was such, that (following the dismissal) I specifically asked the Chair to note that I was EXTREMELY unhappy with the manner in which the Tribunal had conducted itself. Strangely, I don't expect to see this on the record of proceedings. The Chair's response? Something along the lines of "Then perhaps we should swap sides of the desk?" (somewhat cuttingly). A great deal of self-control was henceforth exercised in resisting the temptation to suggest it would have been difficult to have done a worse job.....
The "exchanges" moved me sufficiently to suggest to the Chair that we were ALL meant to apply the law as it stood - not as we might like it to be as individuals. That went down REALLY well. Like smallpox in a closed environment.
The statement of reasons and record of proceedings SHOULD make for interesting reading. I wonder if they will reflect what actually took place?
I can honestly say that had I been representing the LA (they didn't show), I would have proactively supported any complaint / move for statement etc by the clmt (and/or rep).
Now, I have to allow the anger to suitably dissipate before working out whether or not, in my view, the Tribunal reached the correct bottom-line decision in spite of itself.
NB: For those interested, the overpayment was a "duplicate" payment made to the L/L - the clmt knew nothing of it. The LA correctly notified both parties and my view was the clmt had grounds on which to appeal. The Chair's main reasoning (apparently) for dismissing the appeal, was that the clmt was not in any way disadvantaged by the recovery of that o/p from the L/L. Er, um? So what? But, the SOR will reveal all (I think not.....).
|