Department for Work and Pensions (“DWP”) lost First-tier Tribunal (SEC) appeal (of decision not to pay Personal Independence Payment (“PIP”))

Department for Work and Pensions (“DWP”) lost First-tier Tribunal (SEC) appeal (of decision not to pay Personal Independence Payment (“PIP”))

Department for Work and Pensions (“DWP”) lost First-tier Tribunal (SEC) appeal (of decision not to pay Personal Independence Payment (“PIP”))

                                                          

Birkenhead County Court entrance 5th October 2018 which was the venue for the First-tier Tribunal hearing (Social Entitlement Chamber)
Birkenhead County Court entrance which was the venue for the First-tier Tribunal hearing (Social Entitlement Chamber)

By John Brace – Appellant

First publication date: Thursday 7th April 2022, 12:01 (BST).

Previous reports on the prior hearings (both of which were adjourned) in this same appeal held on 14th December 2021 and 28th February 2020 at the same venue can be read at either of these links (which will open a new page).

Appellant: Mr John Brace (unrepresented)
Respondent: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (“DWP”) represented by Miss Green (Presenting Officer)
Case number: SC062/19/01113
Location: 76 Hamilton St, Birkenhead CH41 5EN (ground floor)
Mode of hearing: Hybrid (face to face/phone)
Date and time of hearing: Tuesday 15th March 2022, 10.00 am
Type: First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber)
First-tier Tribunal Judge: Judge Jenny Frances Lester-Ashworth
First-tier Tribunal Medical Member: Dr Simon Jerome Lundy
First-tier Tribunal Disability Member: Mrs M Walton

As I waited in the waiting area in the corridor before the hearing started, it was shortly after 9.40 am (just over two months) since Leonora had died and I felt upset. Leonora had represented me from the start of the appeal in November 2019 and during the previous two face to face hearings in 2021 and 2020) it was strange to be at this final hearing without her. This was an appeal of a mandatory reconsideration decision not to award PIP made by Jo Brown dated 24th October 2019.
Continue reading “Department for Work and Pensions (“DWP”) lost First-tier Tribunal (SEC) appeal (of decision not to pay Personal Independence Payment (“PIP”))”

What reasonable adjustments were agreed for a First-tier Tribunal hearing in a PIP (Personal Independent Payment) appeal and why was an urgent hearing granted in a case that started in 2019?

What reasonable adjustments were agreed for a First-tier Tribunal hearing in a PIP (Personal Independent Payment) appeal and why was an urgent hearing granted in a case that started in 2019?

What reasonable adjustments were agreed for a First-tier Tribunal hearing in a PIP (Personal Independent Payment) appeal and why was an urgent hearing granted in a case that started in 2019??

                                                

Birkenhead County Court entrance 5th October 2018 which was the venue for the First-tier Tribunal hearing (Social Entitlement Chamber)
Birkenhead County Court entrance which was the venue for the First-tier Tribunal hearing (Social Entitlement Chamber)

By John Brace – Appellant
and
Leonora Brace – Appellant’s Representative

First publication date: Saturday 1st January 2022, 21:37 (GMT).

Regular readers of this blog will know that I previously published a piece about a First-tier Tribunal hearing on the 14th December 2021 in Birkenhead involving an appeal of a PIP (Personal Independence Payment) mandatory reconsideration decision by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made in 2019.

At the time I wrote a very short piece, but as now a couple of weeks has passed, I wanted to provide more detail.
Continue reading “What reasonable adjustments were agreed for a First-tier Tribunal hearing in a PIP (Personal Independent Payment) appeal and why was an urgent hearing granted in a case that started in 2019?”

Hearing in London in Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) information rights case GIA/3037/2017 involving Martin Morton, ICO and Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council took place yesterday

Hearing in London in Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) information rights case GIA/3037/2017 involving Martin Morton, ICO and Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council took place yesterday

Hearing in London in Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) information rights case GIA/3037/2017 involving Martin Morton, ICO and Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council took place yesterday

                             

Liverpool Civil & Family Court, Vernon Street, Liverpool, L2 2BX (where the hearing for First-Tier Tribunal case EA/2017/0108 would have been held) which was cancelled and transferred to the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) in London
Liverpool Civil & Family Court, Vernon Street, Liverpool, L2 2BX (where the hearing for First-Tier Tribunal case EA/2017/0108 would have been held) which was cancelled before it was transferred to the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) in London

This story continues from Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) case involving information request to Wirral Council by Martin Morton listed for public hearing on Thursday 26th April 2018.

The hearing in Upper Tribunal case GIA/3037/2017 (previously First-tier Tribunal case EA/2017/0108) took place yesterday at Field House, 15-25 Breams Buildings, London, EC4A 1DZ. Unfortunately I wasn’t present at the hearing.
Continue reading “Hearing in London in Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) information rights case GIA/3037/2017 involving Martin Morton, ICO and Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council took place yesterday”

1 invoice and 1 letter about the secret Court application I’m not allowed to write about that cost Wirral Council £535.20

1 invoice and 1 letter about the secret Court application I’m not allowed to write about that cost Wirral Council £535.20

1 invoice and 1 letter about the secret Court application I’m not allowed to write about that cost Wirral Council £535.20

                                  

I’m going to write a story now to show you how difficult it is to do investigative journalism in this country due to the legal framework here, as there are details I know about this story which is would be unlawful for me to publish.

There are two documents associated with this story so first I have to explain the background as to what they are and why I got them. The first is an invoice dated 13th January 2014 to Wirral Council from Lees Solicitors to Wirral Council for the sum of £535.20. This is for:

36 minutes preparation for a hearing at £160/hour 36 minutes which is £96 (+ VAT of £19.20) = £115.20

Counsel’s fee £350 (+VAT of £70) = £420

Grand total: £535.20

Due to legal restrictions *(*don’t you just love this country sometimes and their restrictions on the press?) although I know the names of the parties (such as the Applicant and Respondent) in this case, I’m not allowed to publish either of them on this blog. I cannot tell you who (although I know) the Applicant or Respondent are. In fact I’d better not tell you the date of the hearing, just in case you use that to somehow figure out who the Applicant and Respondent are. As far as I can tell (maybe I’m wrong) I’m not allowed to get a copy of or publish the Court Order (if there is one) that resulted from the hearing to consider the application.

This is openness and transparency in the local courts British style.

So why are Wirral Council paying £535.20 to Lees Solicitors for the legal work outlined in the invoice below? I think I’ve gone as far as I can do in answering that question as the rest would be educated guesswork.

Ironically I get more openness and transparency from Laura Quarry of the Family Court at Birkenhead than I get from Wirral Council in this matter in her letter to me dated 27th October 2014 (also below that the Wirral Council invoice). Mind you it is not hard to be more open and transparent than Wirral Council is it?

Laura Quarry states “Thank you for your letter dated 24th October 2014. This case is a Private Law Family matter. Therefore as you are not a party to this application, we cannot provide you with the documents you have requested. The documents you have requested refer to a civil matter and the case number you have provided is not a civil case number.

If you can provide us with a civil case number we can process your request. Please find enclosed your fee.”

If anyone would like to translate exactly what that means by leaving a comment, please do! I think I understand what she means although I may be wrong!

So which department is involved at Wirral Council in Family Court matters that the press aren’t allowed to write about? Why the Children and Young Peoples Department at Wirral Council of course! Who else?

In a recent change a few years ago, the press can be present at court hearings in the Family Court, however we’re still not allowed to report the details. The Family Court run to a different set of rules to the rest of the court system you see.

redacted invoice Wirral Council £535.20
redacted invoice Wirral Council £535.20
Letter from Birkenhead County Court dated 27th October 2014
Letter from Birkenhead County Court dated 27th October 2014

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this with other people.