Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: Short form decisions

  1. #1
    Senior Member googlybear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    In this together
    Posts
    555

    Short form decisions

    Are they a good thing?

    I've been granted leave to appeal to the Upper Tier Tribunal, by the Upper Tier Tribunal after first being refused leave by a district judge...
    Illegitimi non carborundum

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,512
    It's really an administrative convenience to provide a short form decision initially. HM Courts and Tribunals Service should provide a Statement of Reasons (and Record of Proceedings) to flesh out the short form decision on request, and requesting such a Statement of Reasons is mandatory if appealing to the Upper Tribunal.

    There is little point in detailed reasons being supplied with most tribunal decisions, as they will not be subject to further appeal. Most people care more about their decision being issued quickly, especially if they win and are owed money. Those who are considering an appeal to the Upper Tribunal or who want to understand the tribunal's reasoning can request those reasons.


    I wonder what point(s) of law you are making before the Upper Tribunal. Gaining permission to appeal is clearly the first step, but only means that it is accepted there is a case worth hearing, not that it necessarily has any merit. Of course, I wish you well with your appeal.

  3. #3
    glasgowadviser
    Guest
    im not sure if flymo has misunderstood the stage you are at, I could be picking them up wrong.

    my understanding is that the original poster has lost an appeal, requested the statement of reasons, applied for permission to appeal to the upper tribunal and was refused but then the upper tribunal have granted permission to appeal?

    if so then the shortened decision notice in this case just allows the upper tribunal judge to make a brief decision on the appeal rather than issue a detailed response. this, however, can only be done if both the DWP and the appellant consent to this and the judge feels its appropriate.

    in answer to the question, its really up to you. a shortened decision might allow you to get a decision quicker and that's really about the only thing you have to consider. you wont lose out in any material sense by consenting to it.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,512
    I may well have misunderstood, glasgowadvisor. Unfortunately, the original post wasn't clear about which stage they were at.

    I had interpreted the post as questioning why the First-tier Tribunal issue short form decisions in the first instance, with a Statement of Reasons available for those wishing to appeal to the Upper Tribunal or who wish to understand the First-tier Tribunal's reasoning in more detail.

    Your interpretation is probably more likely considering that the Upper Tribunal has given permission to appeal. If the question about whether to consent to a short form Upper Tribunal decision, I endorse your answer.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,782
    Hello gb
    Nice to see you finally got there, In the fundamental way I understand it I think the only inference you can draw from that request is that your case is not going to be a case of precedent and doesn't need a long winded explanation at the point of decision. I don't think it will have any influence on the actual decision itself.

    Best of luck with it.

  6. #6
    Senior Member googlybear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    In this together
    Posts
    555
    Quote Originally Posted by glasgowadviser View Post
    im not sure if flymo has misunderstood the stage you are at, I could be picking them up wrong.

    my understanding is that the original poster has lost an appeal, requested the statement of reasons, applied for permission to appeal to the upper tribunal and was refused but then the upper tribunal have granted permission to appeal?

    if so then the shortened decision notice in this case just allows the upper tribunal judge to make a brief decision on the appeal rather than issue a detailed response. this, however, can only be done if both the DWP and the appellant consent to this and the judge feels its appropriate.

    in answer to the question, its really up to you. a shortened decision might allow you to get a decision quicker and that's really about the only thing you have to consider. you wont lose out in any material sense by consenting to it.
    Thanks GA.
    Sorry, i didn't give a lot of detail in my original post, but you've pretty much got it in one. This continues from a previous post http://www.youreable.com/forums/show...7-Appeal-today

    I'm thinking that the UTT has seen some merit in my case that wasn't seen by the FTT.
    A short form decision might be good in the sense that i wouldn't have to attend yet another tribunal, and i think they have all the information they need. They wouldn't have to go the expense of a full tribunal.
    On the other hand, is it a bit of a gamble? If there is something that i haven't covered, i wouldn't be there to answer any questions they might have...
    Illegitimi non carborundum

  7. #7
    glasgowadviser
    Guest
    upper tribunal cases are very rarely held as oral hearings. the vast majority are done on paper as in essence its only the application of the law that they are considering not the "facts of the case" as such.

    If the upper tribunal have granted permission to appeal then yes you are right they have decided that you have an argument that is worth hearing, that doesn't guarantee you will have the decision set aside it just means that "you have a point".

    what will happen now is that the DWP will be given the chance to respond to the fact that permission has been granted. If they agree there has been an error and you have signed that form and the upper tribunal judge agrees then the tribunal decision will be set aside and you will get a rehearing.

    even if the dwp agree the decision should be set aside, however, the judge could still disagree upon fully considering the case.

    if the DWP disagree that the decision should be set aside then you will get a copy of their argument, you can either respond to this or not. I only respond if I have a point worth making. when everyone has had their say the judge will ultimately decide.

    I have used the term set aside (meaning the tribunal decision is cancelled and you get a fresh hearing) as that is the most common result at the upper tribunal, technically the judge can remake the decision but that is far less common.

    If you don't have it I would suggest you get experienced advice from an agency who regularly take cases to the upper tribunal.

  8. #8
    Senior Member googlybear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    In this together
    Posts
    555
    Cheers GA.
    I went to my local WRO before Christmas, but just getting about lately has been problematic. For the third time in the past 12 months i've had an abscess the size of a saucer. It's not just the physical limitations this causes, but it makes me feel terribly unwell :-(

    I won a case at the Commissioner's office about 10 years ago, but i attended on that occasion. I soon found myself out of my depth, arguing about the law against 2 advocates, who had all their reference books bookmarked at relevant points. They had no answer to the Howker principle though :-)
    Illegitimi non carborundum

  9. #9
    glasgowadviser
    Guest
    at UT stage it can pretty much be done in writing so I would see if the local advice centre offers email/telephone advice.

    we tend to be pretty pressed with cases though so I would try and do this as soon as possible. don't be too surprised if the dwp response is to agree with you. unlike the dwp at claim stage etc the legal representatives seem to agree with me frequently and even on occasion add what they thinka re additional errors of law into the mix....quite strange.

  10. #10
    Senior Member googlybear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    In this together
    Posts
    555
    Quote Originally Posted by Flymo View Post
    It's really an administrative convenience to provide a short form decision initially. HM Courts and Tribunals Service should provide a Statement of Reasons (and Record of Proceedings) to flesh out the short form decision on request, and requesting such a Statement of Reasons is mandatory if appealing to the Upper Tribunal.

    There is little point in detailed reasons being supplied with most tribunal decisions, as they will not be subject to further appeal. Most people care more about their decision being issued quickly, especially if they win and are owed money. Those who are considering an appeal to the Upper Tribunal or who want to understand the tribunal's reasoning can request those reasons.


    I wonder what point(s) of law you are making before the Upper Tribunal. Gaining permission to appeal is clearly the first step, but only means that it is accepted there is a case worth hearing, not that it necessarily has any merit. Of course, I wish you well with your appeal.
    Thanks Flymo,
    I cited Article 6 of ECHR, the right to a fair hearing - it is my contention that the FT tribunal Judge had made her mind up before i stepped into the room. She and the doctor interrupted me on no fewer than 31 occasions during the course of my hearing, and my rep a further 5 times. He was also shouted down when he tried to stick up for me. She attacked my credibility from the outset, and on 5 occasions, but it was an hour before i got the chance to respond, by which time my head was mince. ;
    and JR2638/9, the 3 Judge High Court Tribunal which ruled on 2 cases together that claimants with mental health problems have been discriminated against by Atos by not first issuing ESA113 as part of their assessment. I have been similarly discriminated.

    I reckon it'll be the latter which has gotten me this far, i complained to the head judge about the conduct of the tribunal judge, and while she made some concessions, none were meaningful. She said that my tribunal judge was "less enabling than other judges" and that i had "highlighted some training and pastoral issues".
    The thing is, my medical history is all checkable, but nobody bothered to check. It seems a tribunal judge has the right to simply disbelieve whatever is said during the course of a hearing, with or without a reason, and some of her sarcastic remarks could be damaging to some people.
    Illegitimi non carborundum

Similar Threads

  1. Decisions decisions
    By deebee in forum Benefits - help & advice on disability benefits, incapacity benefits, ESA and DLA
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-04-14, 09:02
  2. Short Film Competition
    By marthasiede in forum Surveys, research requests and TV programmes
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-01-14, 01:22
  3. Short Film Competition
    By marthasiede in forum News and general discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-01-14, 01:22
  4. Over £6,000 for avery short while!!
    By derbyshire lass in forum Benefits - help & advice on disability benefits, incapacity benefits, ESA and DLA
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-10-12, 12:32
  5. How do ATOS hcp and DWP arrive at decisions?
    By spencer69 in forum Benefits - help & advice on disability benefits, incapacity benefits, ESA and DLA
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 15-08-12, 16:47

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •