Terms & Conditions

[aosulliv]

Morning all.

Would like other members opinions on this scenario.

Case heard last week for the backdating of a claim for HB for a period of three months.

Presenting Officer attended, the claimant did not.

There was no real reason for good cause demonstrated upto the point of the hearing and it was considered to be an open and shut case.

The Chair (in his wisdom) said during the hearing that the claimant must have been depressed during the period that backdating is requested because of the fact that he had been given a Community Service Order of 120 hours, and therefore awarded backdating for the whole period.

When asked how he can make a decision on a person’s state of mind without the claimant either being present or any supporting documentation in the papers, the Chair stated that as he had previously sat on the Bench, he would be aware of the person’s state of mind and he was using his ‘Special Powers’. 😯

Have asked for a SoR, but am interested in other people’s opinions.

[emmadring]

Seeing as the claimant’s criminal record was not available to the chairman, how could he presume to know the effect a CSO would have on the claimant’s state of mind? The claimant could have been imprisoned a number of times before and might have been relieved at being given a CSO instead of going to prison again!

I think you should look at appealing this, I don’t see how there could be enough evidence before the tribunal to indicate the claimant’s state of mind. Previous experience of judging people’s states of mind does not in my opinion give any indication that the judgement has always been correct or that it is correct in this case. Every person is different and will react differently to certain circumstances, so experience is no guide particularly when there has been no opportunity to question the claimant.

[Anonymous]

So how did the Chairman know about the claimant’s criminal record? I’ve had experience of some strange decisions in the past based on subjective information but this one seems particularly strange! Never heard of “Special Powers” before either. Subject to the SOR I would definately take this further.

[aosulliv]

There was information in the papers regarding the CSO, but it is the fact that he has assumed that the claimant went into depression that has annoyed me.

[Anonymous]

[size=9:33b2aa98e5]’Special Powers’ are standard issue to all Tribunal Chairs. They carry them in their Utility Belts.[/size:33b2aa98e5]

[Julian Hobson]

I hope that you now nickname him “Judge Dredd” and “marvel” at his wonderful decision making. I would present all future papers in sealed envelopes and see whether he can read them with his Xray vision.

I don’t think I’ve heard of anything that approaches this for daftness. There is always a chance that the claimant was depressed for the whole of the period and couldn’t have made a claim, but how can anyone make any finding of fact about anything including “good cause” without any examination of the evidence or the person.

This is something that LA’s are accused of all the time and he deserves a rollicking. Please take this to commissioners.

[aosulliv]

Unfortunately this is not the first time that this particular Chair has caused ‘confusion’.

He likes to go off on tangents and ask claimants to guess certain things about him from time to time!

I would never have guessed that he was a Super Hero. I might bring Kyrponite with me next time

[Anonymous]

[quote:62aa82d285]He likes to…ask claimants to guess certain things about him [/quote:62aa82d285]

Is this Catherine Tate in drag?

[Julian Hobson]

am I bothered ?

[peterdelamothe]

Its an error of law – no evidence in front of the Tribunal to support the decision (but it does have to be NO evidence). Or a decision that no reasonable Tribunal would reach?

Bet you were depressed when you got that decision – are you applying for a backdated pay rise?

[Author]

Posts