I know this is hardly a new complaint but I feel that wing members are becoming more and more marginalised in appeals. Does anyone out there feel the same way or is it just me?

In Stockport yesterday the Chairman in a DLA supersession case announced that in his opinion my client was lucky to have received her award in the first place and was in danger of losing her existing award if the appeal went ahead. We discussed whether we wished to withdraw. I suggested an EMP which he refused, and in the end the case was adjourned because the claimant was too stressed out to continue. As I left town I reflected on the fact that throughout the whole process the two wing members (at great expense) had said not a word throughout the whole process, nor had the Chair asked their opinion before firstly refusing and then agreeing to adjourn.

The ultimate was in Chesterfield earlier this year when the Chairman took me into an adjacent room and offered me DLA MRC without any formal hearing.

(Yes. I did accept his offer!)

Any thoughts?

Have had the same experience ... at the same venue and can only sympathise as it puts a whole weight of pressure on your shoulders when you feel justified in the case you are taking forward in the first place.


Glad to see you obtained an adjournment in the end. Why not ask the Decision Maker to send an EMP? They have done so at my request in the past and at the end of the day surely all that anybody wants is the correct decision.

I take your point, Sunil. I inherited this particular case a bit too late to ask for an EMP pre-hearing. Interestingly, the DM was relying on an old EMP report even though the appeal was against refusal to supersede ogo a change of circumstances. The Chairman (probably the same one you had!) was not receptive to the obvious point that a change of circumstances since the EMP called 2 years ago renders that particular report out of date.

I did ask tghe DWP for an EMP on another case recently. Checking through my notes I see that I made the request on 5 May and to date have heard.....nowt!

It is clear law that a decision to ADJOURN is a decision taken by the Tribunal as a whole.

Perhaps if a similar event happens to the one you describe you could point this out and inform the Chairman that you think he/she has a duty to confer on the matter with the wing members before rejecting your application for adj.

I had a case where it was not clear that the Tribunal as a whole had considered whether or not to adjourn a paper hearing (the standard form used by TAS for paper hearings only makes the chairman say they have considered this). Unfortunately, Commissioner did not bite on that as an error of law.

But the tribunal could have started its deliberations before you where present - and left it to the Legally Qualified Panel Member ( or Chair) to convey its thoughts to you.

Not that I want to defend tribunals without cause!