I had a DLA tribunal recently in which the claimant was 17 years old at point of renewal but 18 years old at point of hearing. He did not attend, his mother went as appointee and I represented.

The chair would not proceed with the young person as he was now over 18 years old.

Previously I understand that the claimant does not have to attend. He can be represented and / or have an appointee.

Can anyone advise on where I will find guidance on this, the chair took the option of adjorning and I do not know if this will be re-heard before the same chair or another one. The mother is adamant her son will not attend.

Merry Christmas to those still working…..

My understanding is that the appointee has the same rights as the claimant and there is nothing in the rules that says a claimant must attend an oral hearing.

However, by not attending the tribunal may well (understandably) draw negative inferences as to the level of disability.

If there is a sound medical reason why the young man shouldn't attend, I suggest obtaining a statement from a health professional to that effect.

Happy New Year!

I represented a cl at Tribunal yesterday. She has physical and mental health problems. Awarded on supersession in Feb 05 HRM and MRC. Cl wanted HRC and insisted on appealing. She would not attend the hearing.
Chair basically told me that he, nor any other Chair, would consider HRC without seeing the cl, despite her having evidence of previous suicide attempts, home visits from Psychiatrist etc.
So it would seem that although the cl has the right not to attend, the Trib have their own thoughts on level of award in cases where cl doesn't show. I'm left wondering if anyone can get HRC in a paper hearing.

There is a fundamental duty for any tribunal to hear the case on the evidence presented. They have powers to request additional evidence if needed. Cannot see how attendance of the claimant can be considered essential evidence.
Sounds as if this chair was sounding off a bit. To refuse HRC (or any decision for that matter) at any hearing where adaquate and credible evidence is presented would seem a clear error of law to me.