Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Disability Living Allowance, a rant
23 views
Skip to first unread message
Ian Jackson
Mar 28, 2012, 8:20:02 AM3/28/12
to
(I posted this to urcm but I'm reposting it here as it's more
on-topic. I have left the original comment I was replying to in, for
context.)
In article <qvc749-...@willow.ductilebiscuit.net>,
kimble <k...@ductilebiscuit.net> wrote:
...
>[2] Disability Living Allowance - a benefit paid to cover the cost of
>disability needs regardless of other income. The government and media
>have done a stunning job in recent years of branding benefits
>claiments of all types as scrounging fraudulent scum, to the point
>where visibly disabled people are now subject to benefits-related
>abuse in the street, and nobody seems to care that they're planning to
>cut payments to about 20% of legitimate claimants. :(
Gah. Don't get me started. I helped a friend with their DLA appeal
recently. The rules are incredibly pernickety and seem designed to
make it really hard for the claimant. Rather than "are you disabled
so that you need extra support to live a normal life" they ask much
more specific questions.
For example one of the few ways you can qualify is that you can't walk
normally. Well, that's how you or I would have framed it. But the
law is entirely in fiddling details. I spent hours reading
legislation and caselaw about whether certain things did or did not
count when considering, for example, whether someone was "able to cook
a main meal".
You count as able to cook, for example, if cooking a main meal is
something you could do but you would have to do it in 20 minute stages
with hour long breaks and it would take all day and be the only thing
you did that day. In that case you wouldn't be entitled to DLA.
The hearing itself was a huge deal for my friend, of course. The
tribunal expressed surprise that she was "able" to sit and talk to
them mostly coherently for an hour. I think they somewhat revised
that opinion when I asked my friend "what do you expect the effect to
be of you having come to this hearing this morning" and the answer
came "I will spend the rest of the day and much of tomorrow in bed
dosed up on opiates".
Quite a contrast with the rest of my dealings with the legal system,
as a sometime recreational litigant. At least in the civil courts,
truth and justice seem actually to be relevant.
The DWP DLA bureaucracy is actively hostile. At the appeal hearing
the tribunal members were, I think, well-meaning, but really very
ignorant and also hamstrung by the legislation.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
on-topic. I have left the original comment I was replying to in, for
context.)
In article <qvc749-...@willow.ductilebiscuit.net>,
kimble <k...@ductilebiscuit.net> wrote:
...
>[2] Disability Living Allowance - a benefit paid to cover the cost of
>disability needs regardless of other income. The government and media
>have done a stunning job in recent years of branding benefits
>claiments of all types as scrounging fraudulent scum, to the point
>where visibly disabled people are now subject to benefits-related
>abuse in the street, and nobody seems to care that they're planning to
>cut payments to about 20% of legitimate claimants. :(
Gah. Don't get me started. I helped a friend with their DLA appeal
recently. The rules are incredibly pernickety and seem designed to
make it really hard for the claimant. Rather than "are you disabled
so that you need extra support to live a normal life" they ask much
more specific questions.
For example one of the few ways you can qualify is that you can't walk
normally. Well, that's how you or I would have framed it. But the
law is entirely in fiddling details. I spent hours reading
legislation and caselaw about whether certain things did or did not
count when considering, for example, whether someone was "able to cook
a main meal".
You count as able to cook, for example, if cooking a main meal is
something you could do but you would have to do it in 20 minute stages
with hour long breaks and it would take all day and be the only thing
you did that day. In that case you wouldn't be entitled to DLA.
The hearing itself was a huge deal for my friend, of course. The
tribunal expressed surprise that she was "able" to sit and talk to
them mostly coherently for an hour. I think they somewhat revised
that opinion when I asked my friend "what do you expect the effect to
be of you having come to this hearing this morning" and the answer
came "I will spend the rest of the day and much of tomorrow in bed
dosed up on opiates".
Quite a contrast with the rest of my dealings with the legal system,
as a sometime recreational litigant. At least in the civil courts,
truth and justice seem actually to be relevant.
The DWP DLA bureaucracy is actively hostile. At the appeal hearing
the tribunal members were, I think, well-meaning, but really very
ignorant and also hamstrung by the legislation.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Robbie
Mar 28, 2012, 1:00:13 PM3/28/12
to
that it is wrong. There is a "cooking test" built into DLA but the
ability to cook (or otherwise) does not prevent a person from receiving
DLA. The cooking test can in itself entitle a person to the lowest care
component rate of DLA but it isn't even necessary to fill in the part
relating to the cooking test if it isn't appropriate to the claim.
The "cooking test" is a test designed to show the functional ability of
a person with certain disabilities. It is a theoretical test (you don't
actually have to cook a meal to show you pass the test) and is used as
the many functions required in cooking a main meal resemble the many
tasks and functions a person has to perform during a typical day and can
show if a person has limitations due to a disability.
The rules regarding the application of the cooking test are long
established and quite straightforward. The test is of the ability to be
able to cook a main meal using a cooker (making a snack does not count
nor does, currently though it is to change, using a microwave). It tests
a person's ability to be able to plan, to observe, to concentrate and to
sustain concentration, to be able to physically be able to use the
necessary implements and equipment needed to cook the meal (such as
pots, pans, the cooker itself, taps, peeling instruments etc) and to be
able to do these activities in a reasonable length of time in order to
be able to produce a main meal. If someone took hours to make a main
meal due to being in constant pain (for example) then it can fairly be
said they satisfy the cooking test and would be entitled to the lowest
care component of DLA.
>
> The hearing itself was a huge deal for my friend, of course. The
> tribunal expressed surprise that she was "able" to sit and talk to
> them mostly coherently for an hour. I think they somewhat revised
> that opinion when I asked my friend "what do you expect the effect to
> be of you having come to this hearing this morning" and the answer
> came "I will spend the rest of the day and much of tomorrow in bed
> dosed up on opiates".
>
> Quite a contrast with the rest of my dealings with the legal system,
> as a sometime recreational litigant. At least in the civil courts,
> truth and justice seem actually to be relevant.
>
> The DWP DLA bureaucracy is actively hostile. At the appeal hearing
> the tribunal members were, I think, well-meaning, but really very
> ignorant and also hamstrung by the legislation.
If they were the source of the information you gave about the cooking
> The hearing itself was a huge deal for my friend, of course. The
> tribunal expressed surprise that she was "able" to sit and talk to
> them mostly coherently for an hour. I think they somewhat revised
> that opinion when I asked my friend "what do you expect the effect to
> be of you having come to this hearing this morning" and the answer
> came "I will spend the rest of the day and much of tomorrow in bed
> dosed up on opiates".
>
> Quite a contrast with the rest of my dealings with the legal system,
> as a sometime recreational litigant. At least in the civil courts,
> truth and justice seem actually to be relevant.
>
> The DWP DLA bureaucracy is actively hostile. At the appeal hearing
> the tribunal members were, I think, well-meaning, but really very
> ignorant and also hamstrung by the legislation.
test then they were very ill-informed of what is a long established and
basic test.
>
--
Robbie
Phi
Mar 29, 2012, 3:10:02 AM3/29/12
to
All my cooking is done in the microwave using ready meals, because I cannot
safely lift a saucpan over the cooker. Nevertheless I am still awaiting a
decision on a claim for Attendance Allowance that was initiated last
October.
safely lift a saucpan over the cooker. Nevertheless I am still awaiting a
decision on a claim for Attendance Allowance that was initiated last
October.
Peter Crosland
Mar 29, 2012, 7:55:03 AM3/29/12
to
"Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:g6u*Sb...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
I am sorry to say there are so many inaccuracies in your post it is
difficult to know where to begin in. Probably the best, readily available,
reference source is the Disability Rights Handbook that is available here
http://www.radar-shop.org.uk/Detail.aspx?id=62 or is in the reference
section of many local libraries. DLA is actually split into various parts
and the mobility element is quite separate from the care component so to
suggest that "one of the few ways you can qualify is that you can't walk" is
simply untrue in respect of the care component. As for the tribunal members
at least one, usually the Chairman has to be legally qualified. Quite how
tribunal members can be "hamstrung by the legislation" escapes me. Are you
seriously suggesting they should make a decision that does not comply with
the law, or that they should just make it up as they go along because they
think the applicant is a deserving case regardless of them meeting the rules
or not?
Regards from
Peter Crosland
news:g6u*Sb...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
difficult to know where to begin in. Probably the best, readily available,
reference source is the Disability Rights Handbook that is available here
http://www.radar-shop.org.uk/Detail.aspx?id=62 or is in the reference
section of many local libraries. DLA is actually split into various parts
and the mobility element is quite separate from the care component so to
suggest that "one of the few ways you can qualify is that you can't walk" is
simply untrue in respect of the care component. As for the tribunal members
at least one, usually the Chairman has to be legally qualified. Quite how
tribunal members can be "hamstrung by the legislation" escapes me. Are you
seriously suggesting they should make a decision that does not comply with
the law, or that they should just make it up as they go along because they
think the applicant is a deserving case regardless of them meeting the rules
or not?
Regards from
Peter Crosland
Robbie
Mar 29, 2012, 9:00:05 AM3/29/12
to
to the lowest care component is not replicated in AA. It may be (though
I don't know) that problems with cooking may help towards someone
getting at least the lower rate of AA (which is the equivalent to the
middle rate care component of DLA) but when DLA was introduced in 1992
(previously people under 65 had to claim AA) the cooking test was
specifically introduced as a feature of providing entitlement to the
lowest rate of DLA.
--
Robbie
Ian Jackson
Mar 29, 2012, 8:55:02 AM3/29/12
to
In article <jkvfqb$t8u$1...@dont-email.me>,
Robbie <ngrob...@hotmail.com> wrote:
claim on an inability to cook (which is one of the criteria), that
part of your claim would fail under the circumstances described.
> ... and to be able to do these activities in a reasonable length of
DLA now to be abolished, I don't propose to go and try to dig out the
caselaw reference again.
>If they were the source of the information you gave about the cooking
>test then they were very ill-informed of what is a long established and
>basic test.
The information about the cooking test came from a huge caselaw
summary document from a charity, with each item it having a reference
to a case number. I didn't read the underlying case because there
were dozens if not hundreds of relevant cases, with these kind of
pernickety details, so there wasn't time to go deeply into each one.
Robbie <ngrob...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Ian Jackson wrote:
>>You count as able to cook, for example, if cooking a main meal is
>>something you could do but you would have to do it in 20 minute stages
>>with hour long breaks and it would take all day and be the only thing
>>you did that day. In that case you wouldn't be entitled to DLA.
>
>I don't know where you picked up your information but I can assure you
>that it is wrong. There is a "cooking test" built into DLA but the
>ability to cook (or otherwise) does not prevent a person from receiving
>DLA. The cooking test can in itself entitle a person to the lowest care
>component rate of DLA but it isn't even necessary to fill in the part
>relating to the cooking test if it isn't appropriate to the claim.
My statement was unclear. I meant that if you were basing your DLA
>>You count as able to cook, for example, if cooking a main meal is
>>something you could do but you would have to do it in 20 minute stages
>>with hour long breaks and it would take all day and be the only thing
>>you did that day. In that case you wouldn't be entitled to DLA.
>
>I don't know where you picked up your information but I can assure you
>that it is wrong. There is a "cooking test" built into DLA but the
>ability to cook (or otherwise) does not prevent a person from receiving
>DLA. The cooking test can in itself entitle a person to the lowest care
>component rate of DLA but it isn't even necessary to fill in the part
>relating to the cooking test if it isn't appropriate to the claim.
claim on an inability to cook (which is one of the criteria), that
part of your claim would fail under the circumstances described.
> ... and to be able to do these activities in a reasonable length of
>time in order to be able to produce a main meal. If someone took
>hours to make a main meal due to being in constant pain (for example)
>then it can fairly be said they satisfy the cooking test and would be
>entitled to the lowest care component of DLA.
That is not my understanding but, having won my friend's case and with
>hours to make a main meal due to being in constant pain (for example)
>then it can fairly be said they satisfy the cooking test and would be
>entitled to the lowest care component of DLA.
DLA now to be abolished, I don't propose to go and try to dig out the
caselaw reference again.
>If they were the source of the information you gave about the cooking
>test then they were very ill-informed of what is a long established and
>basic test.
summary document from a charity, with each item it having a reference
to a case number. I didn't read the underlying case because there
were dozens if not hundreds of relevant cases, with these kind of
pernickety details, so there wasn't time to go deeply into each one.
Ian Jackson
Mar 29, 2012, 9:05:02 AM3/29/12
to
In article <iuadnVNa85Nn0enS...@brightview.co.uk>,
> so to suggest that "one of the few ways you can qualify is that you
>can't walk" is simply untrue in respect of the care component.
There are, if I remember rightly, about six ways to qualify for DLA.
It's true that it's worse with the mobility component, but even for
the care component the law is narrowly drawn and the caselaw hasn't
helped.
> As for the tribunal members at least one, usually the Chairman has
>to be legally qualified. Quite how tribunal members can be "hamstrung
>by the legislation" escapes me. Are you seriously suggesting they
>should make a decision that does not comply with the law, or that
>they should just make it up as they go along because they think the
>applicant is a deserving case regardless of them meeting the rules or
>not?
It is precisely because a Tribunal like this required to follow the
law that they are hamstrung by it. If they think a case is deserving,
they must necessarily refuse it if it doesn't meet the tests in the
legislation and caselaw.
Normally what is right and what is legal are supposed to (roughly,
perhaps) coincide. I think it's fair to describe a court as
"hamstrung" if the law is such that they can't legally do what they
know is right.
Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>I am sorry to say there are so many inaccuracies in your post it is
>difficult to know where to begin in. Probably the best, readily available,
>reference source is the Disability Rights Handbook that is available here
>http://www.radar-shop.org.uk/Detail.aspx?id=62 or is in the reference
>section of many local libraries. DLA is actually split into various parts
>and the mobility element is quite separate from the care component
I am aware of this.
>I am sorry to say there are so many inaccuracies in your post it is
>difficult to know where to begin in. Probably the best, readily available,
>reference source is the Disability Rights Handbook that is available here
>http://www.radar-shop.org.uk/Detail.aspx?id=62 or is in the reference
>section of many local libraries. DLA is actually split into various parts
>and the mobility element is quite separate from the care component
> so to suggest that "one of the few ways you can qualify is that you
>can't walk" is simply untrue in respect of the care component.
It's true that it's worse with the mobility component, but even for
the care component the law is narrowly drawn and the caselaw hasn't
helped.
> As for the tribunal members at least one, usually the Chairman has
>to be legally qualified. Quite how tribunal members can be "hamstrung
>by the legislation" escapes me. Are you seriously suggesting they
>should make a decision that does not comply with the law, or that
>they should just make it up as they go along because they think the
>applicant is a deserving case regardless of them meeting the rules or
>not?
law that they are hamstrung by it. If they think a case is deserving,
they must necessarily refuse it if it doesn't meet the tests in the
legislation and caselaw.
Normally what is right and what is legal are supposed to (roughly,
perhaps) coincide. I think it's fair to describe a court as
"hamstrung" if the law is such that they can't legally do what they
know is right.
Peter Crosland
Mar 29, 2012, 10:30:10 AM3/29/12
to
"Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:4+u*3C...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
about applying a set of rules set down in statute, or with the authority of
statute in an even handed and consistent manner. To do otherwise would
create far more injustice than the present system. What you are suggesting
is quite frankly absurd and no court or judicial system could operate under
such a set of arbitrary rules that you suggest. In fact it is more akin to
something out of Alice in Wonderland than sensible legal debate.
Regards from
Peter Crosland
Message has been deleted
Robin
Mar 29, 2012, 1:05:02 PM3/29/12
to
> Normally what is right and what is legal are supposed to (roughly,
> perhaps) coincide. I think it's fair to describe a court as
> "hamstrung" if the law is such that they can't legally do what they
> know is right.
Would you argue equally that a court or tribunal is ' "hamstrung" if
> perhaps) coincide. I think it's fair to describe a court as
> "hamstrung" if the law is such that they can't legally do what they
> know is right.
they can't legally do what they
know is right' if that "right" is:
a. to sentence a murderer to hang by the neck until dead?
b. to sentence to 5 years in prison a person who fraudulently claimed
DLA for 3 years?
c. ditto a person who failed to underdeclared £60,000 taxable income
over 3 years from work on the lump?
If you answer "no" to any of the above then ISTM you are just seeking to
impose your views on others - and without even bothering to get elected
to Parliament let alone getting legislation passed.
But then so many politicians also run the same playground argument
("it's not fair") without bothering to define their yardstick for
fairness that if you were to get elected you might well feel at home in
SW1.
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid
Ian Jackson
Mar 29, 2012, 1:50:03 PM3/29/12
to
In article <jl24gp$o28$1...@dont-email.me>, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Would you argue equally that a court or tribunal is ' "hamstrung" if
>they can't legally do what they know is right' if that "right" is:
>
>[examples]
>Would you argue equally that a court or tribunal is ' "hamstrung" if
>they can't legally do what they know is right' if that "right" is:
>
Well that would depend on whether (a) the members of the court would
have preferred to do that and (b) whether I would have preferred them
to.
I don't want to go into most of your examples because they don't
illuminate the point of principle because we have no real knowledge of
what courts are likely to think of the law, and you have chosen
tendentious examples which you think I'm likely to object to.
But to pick one:
>a. to sentence a murderer to hang by the neck until dead?
wanted to sentence a murderer to death, and you also personally felt
that death sentence was appropriate, you could reasonably say that the
judge was "hamstrung".
Confronted with such a statement I wouldn't object on the grounds that
it was an improper suggestion, or complain that you were trying to
substitute your views for the law. Rather, I would take your
statement as primarily one of support for the death penalty and make
my substantive objections. Secondarily I would question whether your
understanding of the judge's views was correct.
>If you answer "no" to any of the above then ISTM you are just seeking to
>impose your views on others - and without even bothering to get elected
>to Parliament let alone getting legislation passed.
At no point did I suggest that the tribunal ought to disregard the
law. Obviously it's a function of a tribunal to apply the law.
However, that doesn't mean that I have to like the law. Nor does it
mean that the members of the tribunal have to like either. If I feel
that the members of a court dislike the law, and I also dislike it, it
seems fair to describe the court as "hamstrung".
Ian Jackson
Mar 29, 2012, 1:50:03 PM3/29/12
to
In article <un39n7tdept8a5bdp...@4ax.com>,
Anthony R. Gold <tg...@panix.com> wrote:
>personally prefer outcomes that differ from those dictated by parliament,
>but by what definition are those preferred outcomes "right"?
By the same kind of definition as anything is "right". Obviously this
is not a matter everyone necessarily agrees on, but in this case, I'm
referring to the putative opinions of the tribunal members, and my own
opinion.
Anthony R. Gold <tg...@panix.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:05:02 +0100, Ian Jackson
><ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>Normally what is right and what is legal are supposed to (roughly,
>>perhaps) coincide. I think it's fair to describe a court as
>>"hamstrung" if the law is such that they can't legally do what they
>>know is right.
>
>I can see how members of a Tribunal might find situations in which they
><ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>Normally what is right and what is legal are supposed to (roughly,
>>perhaps) coincide. I think it's fair to describe a court as
>>"hamstrung" if the law is such that they can't legally do what they
>>know is right.
>
>personally prefer outcomes that differ from those dictated by parliament,
>but by what definition are those preferred outcomes "right"?
By the same kind of definition as anything is "right". Obviously this
is not a matter everyone necessarily agrees on, but in this case, I'm
referring to the putative opinions of the tribunal members, and my own
opinion.
Ian Jackson
Mar 29, 2012, 1:55:02 PM3/29/12
to
In article <FLednR8wj-Yn7OnS...@brightview.co.uk>,
Yes, I know that.
> To do otherwise would
>create far more injustice than the present system. What you are suggesting
>is quite frankly absurd and no court or judicial system could operate under
>such a set of arbitrary rules that you suggest. In fact it is more akin to
>something out of Alice in Wonderland than sensible legal debate.
I am not suggesting anything of the kind.
I'm suggesting that the current legislation on DLA, and the caselaw
that developed from it, is wrong, primarily because it is too narrow
and focuses too much on details.
Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>"Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:4+u*3C...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>"Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:4+u*3C...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>>Normally what is right and what is legal are supposed to (roughly,
>>perhaps) coincide. I think it's fair to describe a court as
>>"hamstrung" if the law is such that they can't legally do what they
>>know is right.
>
>The law is not about doing what is "right" whatever that might mean. It is
>about applying a set of rules set down in statute, or with the authority of
>statute in an even handed and consistent manner. [...]
>>perhaps) coincide. I think it's fair to describe a court as
>>"hamstrung" if the law is such that they can't legally do what they
>>know is right.
>
>The law is not about doing what is "right" whatever that might mean. It is
>about applying a set of rules set down in statute, or with the authority of
Yes, I know that.
> To do otherwise would
>create far more injustice than the present system. What you are suggesting
>is quite frankly absurd and no court or judicial system could operate under
>such a set of arbitrary rules that you suggest. In fact it is more akin to
>something out of Alice in Wonderland than sensible legal debate.
I'm suggesting that the current legislation on DLA, and the caselaw
that developed from it, is wrong, primarily because it is too narrow
and focuses too much on details.
Peter Crosland
Mar 29, 2012, 5:40:03 PM3/29/12
to
"Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:JTk*RG...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> In article <FLednR8wj-Yn7OnS...@brightview.co.uk>,
> Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>"Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>>news:4+u*3C...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>>>Normally what is right and what is legal are supposed to (roughly,
>>>perhaps) coincide. I think it's fair to describe a court as
>>>"hamstrung" if the law is such that they can't legally do what they
>>>know is right.
>>
>>The law is not about doing what is "right" whatever that might mean. It is
>>about applying a set of rules set down in statute, or with the authority
>>of
>>statute in an even handed and consistent manner. [...]
>
> Yes, I know that.
>
>> To do otherwise would
>>create far more injustice than the present system. What you are suggesting
>>is quite frankly absurd and no court or judicial system could operate
>>under
>>such a set of arbitrary rules that you suggest. In fact it is more akin
>>to
>>something out of Alice in Wonderland than sensible legal debate.
>
> I am not suggesting anything of the kind.
>
> I'm suggesting that the current legislation on DLA, and the caselaw
> that developed from it, is wrong, primarily because it is too narrow
> and focuses too much on details.
Perhaps "Through the Looking Glass" would be more apposite
> Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>"Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>>news:4+u*3C...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>>>Normally what is right and what is legal are supposed to (roughly,
>>>perhaps) coincide. I think it's fair to describe a court as
>>>"hamstrung" if the law is such that they can't legally do what they
>>>know is right.
>>
>>The law is not about doing what is "right" whatever that might mean. It is
>>about applying a set of rules set down in statute, or with the authority
>>of
>>statute in an even handed and consistent manner. [...]
>
> Yes, I know that.
>
>> To do otherwise would
>>create far more injustice than the present system. What you are suggesting
>>is quite frankly absurd and no court or judicial system could operate
>>under
>>such a set of arbitrary rules that you suggest. In fact it is more akin
>>to
>>something out of Alice in Wonderland than sensible legal debate.
>
> I am not suggesting anything of the kind.
>
> I'm suggesting that the current legislation on DLA, and the caselaw
> that developed from it, is wrong, primarily because it is too narrow
> and focuses too much on details.
Regards from
Peter Crosland
Peter Crosland
Mar 30, 2012, 5:05:02 AM3/30/12
to
"Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:fRi*ZF...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
particular manner. The function of the tribunal is to apply the law not to
change it. Whatever the personal views of any, or all, tribunal members are
as to the fairness, or otherwise, of the law their function solely judicial.
Their individual feelings have to be put aside otherwise they are not doing
their job properly so it is simply untrue to say they are hamstrung in the
normal meaning of the word. If you consider that the law is wrong then that
is a matter to lobby Parliament about. Even if you could convince them of
the need or desirability of a change the practical problems remain. Any
scheme to evaluate individual's ability needs to be objective, give
reasonably consistent results and be administered fairly. This has to be the
case for literally millions of people who will be evaluated. Unfortunately
the current system is not perfect that is one reason for the number of
appeals made. That does not indicate if the rules are correct or not but
instead suggest that their application is not as consistent as would be
desirable. It is just as important that tribunals apply the existing law
consistently. Once you introduce any significant degree of arbitrary
decision making such as the personal views of individual members of judicial
bodies then chaos will result.
Regards from
Peter Crosland
0 new messages