I have experienced contradictory instructions over the timing, type and length of submissions that I should present for appeals. With criticism ranging from Chairs not wanting "closely argued submissions" through to criticism for not presenting enough evidence! Do other reps hand in submissions on the day? What about additional medical evidence? Does anyone know what is best practice regarding submissions?

My opinion is that 'evidence' should always be sent in well in advance, although, as there is no requirement to do a written submission at all, I don't see any technical problem with them being handed in on the day.

That said, doing the latter will always be unpopular with tribunals so the earlier you can get it in the better. Tribunal regional offices are not always that fantastic about sending stuff out in time as well. I would ignore the one about not wanting 'closely argued' submissions; part of the function of a written submission is that you have a fallback for the commissioners if the tribunal hapens to 'miss' part of your case.

I always worry when trib chairs refer to my submission as 'evidence' because thats one thing its not. It refers to the evidence eg medical reports and the like but its just a statement of the case. Chairs should know the difference.

I have two hats I wear at TAS, one as a rep (in HB & IS), and one as PO for LA's in HB cases...

There is plenty of case law (don't have my library to hand, but can dig out a few cases, though I would guess that other posters could quote some CD's without much of a to-do... But those cases confirm that as a rep, the case you present is for you to decide. Obviously you have to agree with your client what your role/purpose is, but once engaged, it is for you to say how the LA/DWP etc. is incorrect, mistaken etc. on the matters under appeal. The Chair would not be on firm ground if dictating how you should present your case (Article 6 arguments come to mind if the Chair says what you should be saying, or how you should be saying it).

As a PO however, nothing raises my hackles more than receiving a submission, 5 mins before the hearing. I can neither disprove it, nor in fact agree with its contents, (believe it or not, but there is more than 1 of us who will quite happily revise decisions if they are incorrect, and have agreed to backdate HB at hearing before the Chair could rule, (that annoyed the Chair, who wanted to make their own decision, and questioned my ability to revise a decision once the hearing had begun). When I get a bundle on the morning of the hearing, I normally request postponement/adjournment, as I can't make a decision, (usually my requests are refused where the Chair has had prior sight of the documents, and/or the hearing is adjourned for a while, pushing back other cases to be heard later that day, or causing hearings to run on, (and on into the late evening on one occasion)... I short, I don’t think that it is best practice to make submissions on the day of the hearing, as you need to give the other side a chance to reply… That applies to both the LA as well as the rep, (Claimants can be excused I think, as there is no way they will be familiar with proceedings). Think Article 6 which although an LA/DWP can’t directly rely on, I do seem to recall Commissioner Jacobs saying in one HB decision that the hearing must be seen to be fair to all parties who have an interest…

If I were PO at a hearing where the Chair sought to curtail how the rep wanted to present, and/or direct the rep how the case should be presented, I would certainly support the rep challenging the Chair at the hearing to enable the Rep to present their case for their client, and I have and do openly disagree with Chairs at hearing (it annoys them, but if they behaved appropriately at hearing, I would not have to challenge them), I would also support any later request for set-aside on Art 6 grounds for want of a fair hearing, regardless of the outcome of the hearing...

On a final note, I think some Chairs can get a bit carried away with themselves, (one person whom I have thankfully met only once, wanted me and the Rep to go 'head to head' in a full scale argument, insisting that the process was adversarial, (I dread to think how he got the job), but on the whole, a Rep who asks me for assistance when I am PO, will receive that assistance when the Chair gets carried away, as PO's have a duel responsibility, (to the LA, and to ensure the Tribunal makes a correct decision, and that includes seeking to ensure that the Tribunal conducts itself correctly), and there are those of us that take that responsibility seriously…

As far as I am aware, a written submission by a rep is what the rep will say to the tribunal, but put down in writing. It forwarns the tribunal what arguments you are using to support your client's appeal.
It is exactly the same as the submission made by the Secretary of State (or Local Authority).
It is seen by the Tribunal Service as good practice if you can send your (reps) submission to them at least 7 days before the hearing date to give the clerk time to sent it to all the parties for consideration. However, this is not mandatory, because it is what you are going to say to the tribunal anyway.
If you present the submission on the day of the hearing and the chair refuses to accept it, then just read it out loud during the hearing. If they refuse to accept what you say, then you should have good grounds to appeal to the Commissioner.
The role of a presenting officer at a Tribunal is that of amicus curae (friend of the court) and should take neither one side nor the other, during the hearing

I don't think there is a best practice laid down. Best to remember that tribunals are made up of qualified members but human just the same. Reps wouldnt want to be handed several pages of new material just before a hearing and neither do tribunals (not that they would ever let it affect their judgement, but Chairs do seem a little tetchier when faced with on the day submissions). I try to get my written submissions in 7 days before the hearing date, not always possible but I do try, that way I know the trib has familiriased itself with my arguments and checked what I say against the decision makers submission and the other paperwork.
Having said all that one of my colleagues never writes a submission, preferring to present cases orally on the day.
There is no advantage or disadvantage either way.....it's just what we feel is the best of our ability.

As an aside, if the Chair feels that more medical evidence, or whatever evidence, is required then he should, in discussion with the other members, adjourn the hearing and get it for themselves. There is a CD somewhere that basically says its not fair to expect cls to pay for medical evidence.

Wed 16-Aug-06 10:41 AM by ken

The President of the Tribunals Service is currently inviting feedback from appeals representatives across Great Britain on a 'statement of good pre-hearing practice for guidance and assistance of those representing appellants at tribunals.'

Included within this consultative paper is the following section concerning written submissions -

'A written submission lodged in advance or at hearing can have advantages for both appellant and tribunal. It focuses the issues at the outset and can highlight aspects of the appeal which a representative considers to be important. It aIso demonstrates to
the tribunal that the representative has discussed the conduct of the hearing with the appellant and that the appellant is aware in advance of the hearing of the issues which are being put forward on their behalf.

Although this can be done orally, a verbal submission at the outset of the hearing is likely to be much briefer. The tribunal will generally direct that a representative does not stray into matters of evidence before the appellant has given his evidence, leaving it until the end of proceedings to hear a more detailed submission.From the tribunal's point of view a written. submission is always preferable.

Any Commissioners' decisions to be referred to should be cited in the submission and copies produced, unless it is a reported decision.'

For further information see the rightsnet news story -

Good pre-hearing practice for appeals representatives - Tribunals Service consultation (12 July 2006)

Here is also a direct link to the 'Statement of good pre-hearing practice for guidance and assistance of those representing appellants at tribunals' -

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/good_pre-hearing_practice_july_2006.pdf