ESA - Lost Tribunal - Upper Tribunal Awarded...UT Postponed!!!!

[Max1968]

Thanks Noah. I'm just going to be applying for anything reasonable to be honest just so she can't do anything. The thing that made me laugh was the fact that she saw my application to be a DWP decision maker and was totally serious asking me about my interest etc. I played along but couldn't believe that she actually thought I was serious about applying for that. She obviously didn't see the joke. I'll just continue to use Indeed and other job sites and record on UJM that I am doing that. There isn't anything mandatory that you have to use UJM just that you have to sign in to it once a day.

[Max1968]

By the way can anyone advise me on how many job applications I should put down on UJM per week? Obviously I am not going to get any of them so I am just putting them down so I tick the boxes on my claimant commitment but at the same time I think putting say two or three a day down might raise a red flag with the work coach because it could look like I am just applying for the sake of applying, which of course I am but I don't want her to think that! Also the more you apply for on say a Monday would leave less options to apply for on a Tuesday, and so forth.

[Noah1]

By the way can anyone advise me on how many job applications I should put down on UJM per week? Obviously I am not going to get any of them so I am just putting them down so I tick the boxes on my claimant commitment but at the same time I think putting say two or three a day down might raise a red flag with the work coach because it could look like I am just applying for the sake of applying, which of course I am but I don't want her to think that! Also the more you apply for on say a Monday would leave less options to apply for on a Tuesday, and so forth.

 

Every claimant has to go by what they signed in the agreement so it depends what you've signed. Job title, number of applications have to match because in case of dispute, agreement will be the first thing they will wave in the front of your face. In general you can use any websites you like, the point is in applying reasonably and having evidence that you've made an effort.

 

Your SAR will take some time to get, but I think you need to know whether you really have case for the Upper Tribunal. Did you get CAB advise on it? My view is that the SAR, although full of info, wouldn't be crucial document for getting your case further.

[Max1968]

Every claimant has to go by what they signed in the agreement so it depends what you've signed. Job title, number of applications have to match because in case of dispute, agreement will be the first thing they will wave in the front of your face. In general you can use any websites you like, the point is in applying reasonably and having evidence that you've made an effort.

 

Your [url="http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?387306

 

 

All my agreement states is -

 

 

"I have agreed with my coach that I can restrict the type of work I am looking for to : Office based work"

"The days and hours I am available to work are : Monday to Friday 13.00 to 18.00"

"Use jobsites and employer websites to find and apply for jobs I can do 5 x week"

"Log into IJM account to find and apply for jobs I can do 5 x week"

"Check newspaper job vacancy sections and apply for jobs I can do weekly"

"Respond promptly to contacts and notifications from employers and jobsites daily"

"Consider what I need to do to make effective applications to the jobs I find. Ongoing"

"Ensure I have an up to date CV that I can tailor for jobs I apply for. Ongoing"

"I will also consider making speculative approaches to local companies. Ongoing"

 

 

So nothing about how many applications I am required to make..... I took an online test re that DWP job and failed to make the grade so no interview there!!!

 

 

Getting advice from the CAB on Thursday but only getting the SAR really to make them earn their money. Don't expect to make any appeal to the Upper Tribunal to be honest, I'll just stick on JSA.

[fletch70]

You will need to evidence that you have been looking, that is the problem. It's no good just saying that you didn't find anything.

 

Did you say the advisor could access your UJM

 

 

As for appeal to the UtT the problem there is you have to demonstrate how they failed on a point of law and I do not know enough to be able to help. I do know that retired GPs sometimes sit and my guess is that they are not registered to practice.

 

Depending where you live there maybe benefits advice centres, I know Birmingham have them still but you need to live there.

[Max1968]

You will need to evidence that you have been looking, that is the problem. It's no good just saying that you didn't find anything.

 

Did you say the advisor could access your UJM

 

 

As for appeal to the UtT the problem there is you have to demonstrate how they failed on a point of law and I do not know enough to be able to help. I do know that retired GPs sometimes sit and my guess is that they are not registered to practice.

 

Depending where you live there maybe benefits advice centres, I know Birmingham have them still but you need to live there.

 

 

 

Oh yeah the advisor checks UJM but I am just applying willy nilly for jobs I now I will not get so as long as you are applying if you don't get them that's not my fault. I just fill in the activity notes thing and save all emails received to say I haven't been considered in a folder in my email. I was just wondering what they are looking for numbers applying wise, I mean if you look on a Tuesday more often than not it's the same jobs that were there on the Monday.

[tommy456]

You will need to evidence that you have been looking, that is the problem. It's no good just saying that you didn't find anything.

 

Did you say the advisor could access your UJM

 

 

As for appeal to the UtT the problem there is you have to demonstrate how they failed on a point of law and I do not know enough to be able to help. I do know that retired GPs sometimes sit and my guess is that they are not registered to practice.

 

Depending where you live there maybe benefits advice centres, I know Birmingham have them still but you need to live there.

It is or was a requirement of HMCTS that the medical panel members are to be registered , but they don't need to be licensed to practice , although i have read someone's complaint that the medical member on their panel wasn't registered with the GMC, So the question is why where they sitting on a tribunal panel?

[Max1968]

It is or was a requirement of HMCTS that the medical panel members are to be registered , but they don't need to be licensed to practice , although i have read someone's complaint that the medical member on their panel wasn't registered with the GMC, So the question is why where they sitting on a tribunal panel?

 

 

That's my whole point hence why I am going to check with the CAB if it is an error of law. Probably won't do me any good but if it's against the rules for unregistered doctors to work on a tribunal as you say what is he doing there>?

[tommy456]

That's my whole point hence why I am going to check with the CAB if it is an error of law. Probably won't do me any good but if it's against the rules for unregistered doctors to work on a tribunal as you say what is he doing there>?

That itself wouldn't constitute an error in law, as it would be a procedural issue, but what is needed is up to date info on the criteria for medical panel members who sit at tribunals , then if they still need to be registered and he is definitely not registered then go to the press , but you need to be certain or you could end up in strife

 

But if within the SOR and ROP from the tribunal there is something that stands out ,like they haven't considered all the evidence, or like in my recent case where they observed me walk to the railway stn from the window of the hearing room before making a decision , the tribunal hearing had already concluded as well as not being able to be asked questions regarding it

 

Also regarding errors of fact or law they also have to really be detrimental in that the omission of vital evidence or their failings to properly understand how your conditions affect you, or they fail to take into account side effects of certain drugs , basically it has to be something that would be likely to change the outcome, otherwise the utt will throw it out

[fletch70]

It seems wrong but when you apply for leave to appeal you can not just say that they ignored certain aspects as the response will be, well they don't have to give every reason. That is why I do suggest that getting some help from a reputable organisation is beneficial - unlike the one I was referred to in Derby who were anything other than professional

[Noah1]

 

 

 

So you need to demonstrate all the points your agreement states. It says you will apply to 5 jobs per week twice which is 10 applications pw. It's acceptable you have let's say 3 on one day and 1 on the other as the advisor checks weekly.

[Max1968]

 

 

So you need to demonstrate all the points your agreement states. It says you will apply to 5 jobs per week twice which is 10 applications pw. It's acceptable you have let's say 3 on one day and 1 on the other as the advisor checks weekly.

 

 

I worded it badly, I missed out the bit at the top in the columns which says "how often". So x5 means log into UJM 5 times a week not make 5 applications a week. Nothing in there to say how many applications I need to apply for. Have attached the commitment document.

[Noah1]

 

 

I worded it badly, I missed out the bit at the top in the columns which says "how often". So x5 means log into UJM 5 times a week not make 5 applications a week. Nothing in there to say how many applications I need to apply for. Have attached the commitment document.

 

 

At the end of the day, it's competently up to you, but hearing bad stories of claimants that were suspended for lack of applications, I would be cautious. Just logging on without evidence of having enough applications wouldn't satisfy the DWP so we can speculate but it's for your good to have minimum 5 up to 10 pw.

[tommy456]

A UTT judge ruled that it was the quality of the steps a job seeker takes to find work that is important not the quantity , from the ss of the cc you are taking at least 3 steps every week to find work, that is sufficient to satisfy the JSA criteria and that is without applying aimlessly for any jobs that you cannot do ,

 

If i were you i would revoke the work roaches access to your UJ account by changing the password, and if there are no jobs available within the travelling time you agreed to with your work roach then why apply ? that isn't part of the conditionality you are taking enough steps each week without applying for jobs you don't want or couldn't do

[Noah1]

As I said it will be not my call to make, but the DWP proved to be ruthless in some cases. There is a discrepancy between what a UTT judge rules ( to get must be a very and painful road by the way) and common practice of advisors. I wonder how one can explain the quality of the steps a job seeker takes to find work to advisor without providing enough evidence of applications. Nobody advised here to apply aimlessly for any jobs, but it's better to be safe than sorry. My advise would be to cooperate and I can't see any ground for revoking access to the UJ account.

[Max1968]

It's not worth revoking the UJ account access because then they just request that you bring in copies of what you have been doing which IMO is counter productive. It's easy enough to just write down "applied for XYZ" or "found not suitable for XYZ" etc. In fact the more info you put the more difficult it is for them to trawl through your activity history. Lets face it these work coaches aren't just seeing you they have a whole host of claimants and probably just look at your UJM account each time you attend to sign on.

 

I am down on my claimant commitment under "The types of work I am most likely to get" as "Data input - ideally a job I can do at home". Of course generally data input jobs you need a qualification anyway and jobs from home are about as rare as a sympathetic DWP decision maker!!!!! So this is the quandary there just aren't the jobs available to apply for. Some of these sites only update every couple of days so the only way you can apply for 5 jobs a week is to just apply for stuff that you know you can't do. I mean when I was unemployed before I got ill I couldn't find 5 jobs a week to apply for! Also it says on the claimant commitment that you have to apply for jobs 90 minutes away from home. I told the work coach that if that was the case I would need to utilise "access to work". She said you have to apply for that and it's all down to whether that employer takes part in the scheme anyway so she didn't seem too worried about me doing that. I'm going to apply for stuff I can't do anyway just to keep my quota up because if I apply just for stuff I can do I'll be putting nothing down most of the time!

 

 

Plus you can only keep an account of any applications of stuff applied for on UJM anyway as there isn't a facility to import applications from elsewhere. Even if a job on UJM takes you to an external site then it just shows up as Applied offsite.

[Noah1]

It's not worth revoking the UJ account access because then they just request that you bring in copies of what you have been doing which IMO is counter productive. It's easy enough to just write down "applied for XYZ" or "found not suitable for XYZ" etc. In fact the more info you put the more difficult it is for them to trawl through your activity history. Lets face it these work coaches aren't just seeing you they have a whole host of claimants and probably just look at your UJM account each time you attend to sign on.

 

I am down on my claimant commitment under "The types of work I am most likely to get" as "Data input - ideally a job I can do at home". Of course generally data input jobs you need a qualification anyway and jobs from home are about as rare as a sympathetic DWP decision maker!!!!! So this is the quandary there just aren't the jobs available to apply for. Some of these sites only update every couple of days so the only way you can apply for 5 jobs a week is to just apply for stuff that you know you can't do. I mean when I was unemployed before I got ill I couldn't find 5 jobs a week to apply for! Also it says on the claimant commitment that you have to apply for jobs 90 minutes away from home. I told the work coach that if that was the case I would need to utilise "access to work". She said you have to apply for that and it's all down to whether that employer takes part in the scheme anyway so she didn't seem too worried about me doing that. I'm going to apply for stuff I can't do anyway just to keep my quota up because if I apply just for stuff I can do I'll be putting nothing down most of the time!

 

 

Plus you can only keep an account of any applications of stuff applied for on UJM anyway as there isn't a facility to import applications from elsewhere. Even if a job on UJM takes you to an external site then it just shows up as Applied offsite.

 

It's about your living being paid and you were honest by disclosing your health issues. I don't think anybody can argue with this and you have to play their game.

[Max1968]

Well saw the CAB today and he thinks I have a pretty decent case for an error of law. He pointed me in the direction of an Upper Tribunal Case which you can find online and within the details of the case it stated :

i) on a DLA appeal the FtT must consist of a Tribunal Judge (“a judge”), a Tribunal member who is a registered medical practitioner (“a medical member”) and a Tribunal member who has a disability qualification (“a DQM”), and

ii) on an ESA appeal the FtT must consist of a judge and a medical member.

I have also continued digging and have found the following :

https://jac.judiciary.gov.uk/guide-eligibility-non-legally-qualified-candidates

Medical roles

Medical tribunal members are usually selected annually and an applicant is eligible for appointment if he or she is a registered medical practitioner with the General Medical Council (GMC) in the UK.

For such roles, the Lord Chancellor may specify that candidates’ registration with the GMC is unconditional.

Conditional registration is where a doctor has either been issued with a warning or referred to a Fitness to Practice Panel, or has had any restrictions imposed on their registration with the GMC.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/261842/response/644870/attach/3/sec%20composition%20sscs%20cases%2001082013.pdf

the Tribunal must, subject to paragraphs 7 to 14, consist of a Tribunal Judge and a Tribunal Member who is a registered medical practitioner.

So basically every single document I have seen regarding medical practitioners on tribunals has stated that they must be a “registered medial practitioner” regardless of if they have a licence or not they must be registered. The one on my tribunal wasn’t……

[BazzaS]

The problem lies in changes within the GMC.

 

It used to be "not registered", "provisionally registered", "registered with conditions" or "fully registered".

 

Now, registration is distinct to license to practice.

It is possible to be registered, but without a licence to practice : and it is unclear how this fits with a requirement "to be a fully registered medical practitioner", (the previous requirement from before the licence to practice was brought in).

[Max1968]

The problem lies in changes within the GMC.

 

It used to be "not registered", "provisionally registered", "registered with conditions" or "fully registered".

 

Now, registration is distinct to license to practice.

It is possible to be registered, but without a licence to practice : and it is unclear how this fits with a requirement "to be a fully registered medical practitioner", (the previous requirement from before the licence to practice was brought in).

 

Well my guy is "Not registered - having relinquished registration" so he is not registered. I'm not worried about licences at all just registration and he isn't registered with the GMC.

 

At the end of the day it doesn't effect me. Another tribunal would still find me fit for work because of the descriptors and that's a law change that is for another day but at the very least if I am right and it helps to bring clearer clarification and transparency then great.

[Noah1]

Well saw the CAB today and he thinks I have a pretty decent case for an error of law. He pointed me in the direction of an Upper Tribunal Case which you can find online and within the details of the case it stated :

i) on a DLA appeal the FtT must consist of a Tribunal Judge (“a judge”), a Tribunal member who is a registered medical practitioner (“a medical member”) and a Tribunal member who has a disability qualification (“a DQM”), and

ii) on an ESA appeal the FtT must consist of a judge and a medical member.

I have also continued digging and have found the following :

https://jac.judiciary.gov.uk/guide-eligibility-non-legally-qualified-candidates

Medical roles

Medical tribunal members are usually selected annually and an applicant is eligible for appointment if he or she is a registered medical practitioner with the General Medical Council (GMC) in the UK.

For such roles, the Lord Chancellor may specify that candidates’ registration with the GMC is unconditional.

Conditional registration is where a doctor has either been issued with a warning or referred to a Fitness to Practice Panel, or has had any restrictions imposed on their registration with the GMC.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/261842/response/644870/attach/3/sec%20composition%20sscs%20cases%2001082013.pdf

the Tribunal must, subject to paragraphs 7 to 14, consist of a Tribunal Judge and a Tribunal Member who is a registered medical practitioner.

So basically every single document I have seen regarding medical practitioners on tribunals has stated that they must be a “registered medial practitioner” regardless of if they have a licence or not they must be registered. The one on my tribunal wasn’t……

 

It looks like you've got a green light to procede. Are you up to it?

[Max1968]

It looks like you've got a green light to procede. Are you up to it?

 

 

Well if nothing else I'll hopefully get a B+ for effort!!! Can't lose anything by trying and it would be a shame to waste all this research. Have to wait for the "statement for reasons" and that apparently comes with details of how to ask for permission to go to an Upper Tribunal. I can't see how it's not an error of law but at the same time the whole system moves the goalposts for their own devices,. I mean if they refuse to allow me an upper tribunal due to this apparent error of law then where do you go from there because you are technically asking the people who have made that error to accept that error. I am looking forward to what excuse they come up with to avoid it.

[Max1968]

Well just an update. Still haven't received a statement of reasons from the Judge and it's nearly a month since they received my request so not sure how long it will take to come through. Received the SAR although none of it is of any use as it's just pages and pages of duplicated stuff I already have bar details of when I contacted them and vice versa and pages upon pages of Jobseekers Allowance data protection printouts which are all rather samey and I have no idea what they mean.

 

 

Did receive a response from my MP although as with most politicians the reply is pretty useless. He (or rather his secretary) replied :

 

 

I am writing on behalf of ***** to thank you for sending through the requested information which ***** has reviewed.

 

 

As you will be aware ***** is not able to intervene in a Court’s decision. If a claimant wishes to dispute a Judge’s decision he/she would need to seek legal advice.

However, ***** is happy to write to the Minister of State for Work and Pensions to convey the points that you raised at the end of your original email of the 25th October and ***** will of course contact you when he has received a response.

[Max1968]

Just thought I would update you all on this shambles of a system.

 

Called the HM Tribunals Service yesterday because it's been nearly 7 weeks since they received my request for the Judge from my Tribunal to forward me a Statement of Reasons for their decision.

 

The girl on the phone said that they had sent a reminder to the Judge twice and then mumbled something about the fact they sent the "wrong reminder" first time.

 

She kept calling the Judge a he even though the Judge was a she

(maybe all Judges are spoken of as he's I don't know)

and said they would send another reminder out.

 

I said "shall I ring back in a month if I still haven't heard anything" for which she advised me to do so.

 

I wasn't very happy and politely mentioned that as the claimant we get no more than 4 weeks to do our bits and send our information and replies to this, that and the other and stated that it wasn't fair that they therefore can pussy foot around for 7 weeks apparently ignoring continuous internal reminders.

 

At the very best it shows possibly that Judges are swamped and overworked but I wouldn't be asking for a statement of reasons if an unregistered doctor had apparently illegally sat on my tribunal so the system obviously brings the overwork it upon itself because they can't do things correctly the first time.

 

At the worst it is extremely rude and inconsiderate and as claimants we would be up the creek without a paddle if we did not do things by the deadlines set and yet they seemingly can do what they want and who and where can we complain to !!!!!!

[Bazooka Boo]

All I can say Max is stick with it!

 

Well done for being so tenacious so far, you are 100% correct, they treat us with utter contempt and the same rules don't apply to them.

 

Have you been keeping your local MP informed of the mess they're presiding over?

This is definitely a ministerial matter now, there is no room for this impunity from a government department, get on their back and highlight their failings, AGAIN!!