MOVING THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL FURTHER & FURTHER AWAY FROM THE APPELLANT’S HOME: PROCEDURAL UNFAIRNESS

Earlier this week I paid tribute to Sir Henry Brooke. This included his most recent work dealing with PIPs and ESAs.  He wrote in his blog:

“Readers  of these blogs will know I have been telling stories of the injustices caused to severely disabled people by the incompetence, delay and wholly avoidable mistakes they have been encountering in their struggles with the new assessment arrangements. “

I think others have agreed to take up his mantle. I have no doubt that Sir Henry would have used language far more effectively than I can if he had read the decision in TA v SSWP (PIP)  [2018].UKUT 26 (AAC). I

THE CASE

The Appellant made a claim for Personal Independence Payment. A review was refused and she appealed.

She suffered from an injury whilst travelling on a bus. This made her wary of travelling. She stated in her enquiry form that she was not able to attend a hearing.

The papers were sent to Cambridge, some 60 miles from the Appellant’s home.  The tribunal decided it wanted to hear from her and adjourned the hearing, but the appeal was to stay at the same venue.

The Appellant indicated she could not attend. The tribunal’s response was to list the appeal at Colchester – some 90 miles away from the Appellant’s home.

The Appellant said she could not attend and the tribunal made a finding against her.

THE APPEAL

The appeal was allowed on the grounds that there was procedural unfairness.   Indeed, the Secretary of State did not oppose the appeal on these grounds.