|
Enormously tricky comrade! because there is this fine balance between the client/worker relationship and confidentiality, and the desire to best represent the case. All I can offer is my experience of one not too disimilar in the recent past.
My client has a severe m/h illness which had seen him spend a lot of time both in hospital, under section, and in Her Majesty's Prisons. He had a history of violence - directly related to his illness and his frustrations in expressing same.
Physically as fit as the proverbial flea, and very reluctant to ever admit (outside the hospital environs) to any problems of a m/h type - perceived stigma, fear of being sectioned, etc. - not too different from the case you cite - his application for DLA was, initially, totally rejected. EMP could see no problem from the nano second he spent with him, so we went to tribunal.
On consultation with a Senior Forensic Social Worker, clients CPN and Psychiatrist - the first two of whom BOTH attended tribunal, and the latter provided a five page report (very impressive!), I submitted a letter to Chair of Tribunal explaining that said evidence could prejudice relationship with support network if client was made aware of contents. I hand delivered it the morning of Tribunal (thereby preventing them from copying it to client) together with the crucial evidence. I stated that if the Tribunal felt unable to agree to my request, I would have to withdraw the specific evidence. I should add that I had - prior to listing of case - made them aware of some of the problems, so they were "pre-warned".
The Chair agreed to allow the evidence and I was called in alone first, together with presenting officer, to discuss. Client remained in waiting area with SW & CPN, advised that it was a technical querry.
On sight of the evidence, the Tribunal were convinced of the validity of the case, even if the Presenting Officer was a tad sniffy.
They called in client, asked some mundane questions so that he believed he had given information, adjourned for a few minutes to deliberate, then called us back in - HRCC/LRMC for indefinite period.
Now, some will undoubtedly have problems with the element of "deception" {too strong a word, but it'll get some going!}, but the alternative is that someone with clear care and mobility needs went without his DLA, and the other relevant help due to him.
I sleep soundly at nights, and see the client in town frequently, coping very well with his support package and his increased resources. Best of all, he's not been to Prison since.
Splott-Paul
|
