I am going to a tribunal regarding the recovery of an overpayment of AA and we have recieved notice of the doctor on the panel. From this I assume that it will be the normal three person AA/DLA panel. I always thought that overpayment hearings were done by just the legally qualified person, am I right in this assumption or is it at the District Chair's discretion. I don't have any problem at all with the wing members being there but the case is about the right to recover,not the client's care needs.

Thanks

Because it is AA it will be a DAT, and hence three people. As far as I am aware the DC has no discretion.

Thanks for clarifying that.
pc

Hi PC,

Reg 32(6) of D&A seems to make this clear: 3 members "in any appeal which relates to an attendance allowance... under Part III of the SSCBA... etc"

This can be contrasted with Reg 32(6)(2)(a)(i) where you get a chair plus a doctor in any case where "the issue, or one of the issues, raised on the appeal is whether the pca is satisfied...".

Given the PCA provision specifically mentions you only get the two members if the issue involves saitfaction of the PCA then it is clear that the DLA/AA provision if it was intended only to apply to cases where issue is whether disability conditions are met would say that explicitly. As it does not, then I think any appeal against an AA or DLA decision gets the wingers.

Bet you can't wait for the "but you could peel a very small potato couldn't you?" question from the carer member when your entire submission relates to Sec 71(1) or whatever.

Martin.

I think this changed when the SSA98 came in. When we had DATs and SSATs(rather than unified Appeal Tribunals)the 3-member DATs only dealt with disability issues, and any other DLA/AA appeal (overpayments etc) went to single member SSATs. Since SSA98 and D&A Regs came in ALL DLA/AA appeals go to 3 member tribunals.

We have had this before and they have been slotted in with DATs and the TAS sent out a standard letter with GPs name. On the day the GP and lay member dropped out and we sat before a solo Chairman as per a SSAT.

northwiltshire-

On my analysis (see previous post), the wing members dropping out would mean the Tribunal was not properly constituted under the Regs

....and presumably therefore was not competent to give a decision?- I wonder what the effect of a decision by an improperly constituted tribunal is?- could one simply say at any stage that the decision was of no force or effect etc?..... I seem to remember at least one Comm Dec. on tribunal composition but am not sure what was said.....