Hello

Could anyone point me in the direction of Commissioners decisions which deal with adopting the SoS's findings as part of the Statement of Reasons, rather than dealing with each issue in the statement?

It's a PCA cases, and only the two descriptors where points had already been scored are actually referred to, but the SoS's submission does go through them all.

The claimant's evidence has been dismissed as not credible - so the statement basically reads we didn't believe her and we agree with the SoS's findings which seems a bit of a cop out.

Thanks for your help

JK

I know there is authority where it was found a Tribunal couldn't simply "rubber stamp" a DWP/LA decision (sorry, can't recall the citation at this time).

However, in this case, the Tribunal appears to have considered the issues and happens to have made its OWN decision - it just so happens that they agree with the reasoning of the SoS. If the latter is correct, I *think* it may well be distinguishable from the authority involving the "rubber stamp" case.

It is trite law that a tribunal does not have deal with every point raised by the appeal in its statement of reasons. The SOR only has to be adequate and it will be sufficient if on the face of the decision the claimant is clearly able to understand why his case has failed.

However, certain things will automatically amount to errors of law. For example, failure to deal with a medical report. But the decision would not be set aside unless the error was a material one. In other words, the error raised the serious possibility that a different decision could have been made.

Have a look at the following for a recent example, which might bear similarities to your client’s case.

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/cgi-bin/sub_client/search.cgi?template1=briefcase/detail.htm&briefcase.ID_option=1&briefcase.ID=361043939

I think the claimant is clearly able to understand that her case failed because the tribunal didn't believe anything that she said.

The SoR was cutting and reflected the attitude of the tribunal on the day (she's got away with not having to look for work was one phrase used in the SoR). It was one of those 'But why don't you just pull yourself together?' hearings.

However the SoR offered an example of contradictory evidence as a basis for their opinion that she was unreliable - she says she prefers to be alone, but she has a teenage son that lives with her. In my opinion that was misdirection. They interpreted 'prefers' as 'is'.

I wanted to add some kind of argument that because they had not dealt with each of the descriptors, and had misinterpreted the law on one descriptor, the SoR was insufficient to show that other errors of law had not been made.

JK

Wed 25-Mar-09 09:51 AM by past caring 2

Well, if her Greta Garbo tendencies are the only example cited of supposed unreliability, you've probably got them - what do they propose, that she turf him out?

However, I don't think it will suffice for you to argue that the statement is not thorough enough to demonstrate that errors of law were not made - it's for you to show that there actually were errors. That said, if the tribunal has adopted the SoS's findings, whilst dealing with only one or two "specimen" descriptors in any detail and you can show that its reasoning in respect of those is flawed, then it's failure to make sufficient findings on the remainder of the descriptors that were put in issue probably does amount to an error of law....

If you haven't already, i would really urge you to get a copy of the record of proceedings (especially bearing in mind the examples of the tribunals comments you cite from the SOR), that coupled with the SOR, might throw up some more stuff you can challenge.

I've got a copy of the record of proceedings - 1 hour 20 minutes of evidence covered in one side of illegible writing. I have asked for a legible copy, but the bits I can read are a very selective record of what went on.

Consider an arguement that the notes are insufficient to show the tribunal covered all the points raised at the hearing, and the passage of time from hearing to SoR being produced , supports the arguement that the DM case adopted as the Tribunal had failed to keep sufficient notes to allow it to produce accurate and acceptable reasons for it decision, and therefore failed to conduct proper proceeding, therefore request a set a side, worked for me recently were theChairman only made half a side of (A4) notes on a case we asked them to cover Exemption, 6 descriptors and Exceptional circ's. Decision set a side on this basis, as sufficients notes are part of the proceedings, hence the current move to recording proceedings in some areas, and likelyhood all proceedings will be recorded in future and CD issued with SoR.