I applied for DLA 12 months ago. Was refused. Had a tribunal hearing 
just before Christmas. Their decision went against me. Appealed to 
Social Security Commisioner's office. They granted me leave to appeal. 
They said the first tribunal's decision was wrong in law. I now have a 
letter - Secretary of State's Submission to the Commissioner. There is a 
submission asking for further findings of facts re my needs. There is a 
request for a new tribunal hearing (from the Sec of States 
representative to the Commisioner).

This letter is accompanied by form OSSC3A.

This form asks me to say whether I have any objections to the tribunal's 
decision being set aside without the Commissioner considering the 
parties' arguments or without the Commisioner giving reasons.

It also asks if I want an oral hearing before the Commissioner (and 
reasons why if I say yes).

The thing is - I asked the Tribunal people recently if I would have a 
chance to submit extra and new evidence that wasn't in my original 
claim. For example, I now have a printout of my entire medical history. 
And I want to submit other documentary evidence as well.

I'm not sure if I need to ask the Commissioner to look at this evidence 
or let it go straight to the new tribunal. I'm not sure how to answer 
the two qustions on the form. I don't particularly want to appear in 
person either before the Commissioner or a new tribunal. Is it possible 
to ask for a "paper hearing" with the Commissioner or ask a 
representative to attend a hearing? And since it's now a year gone, 
which way will I best expedite my appeal?

Any helpful suggestions greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

"me"  wrote in message 
news:466f60fc$0$97266$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>I applied for DLA 12 months ago. Was refused. Had a tribunal hearing just 
>before Christmas. Their decision went against me. Appealed to Social 
>Security Commisioner's office. They granted me leave to appeal. They said 
>the first tribunal's decision was wrong in law. I now have a letter - 
>Secretary of State's Submission to the Commissioner. There is a submission 
>asking for further findings of facts re my needs. There is a request for a 
>new tribunal hearing (from the Sec of States representative to the 
>Commisioner).
>
> This letter is accompanied by form OSSC3A.
>
> This form asks me to say whether I have any objections to the tribunal's 
> decision being set aside without the Commissioner considering the parties' 
> arguments or without the Commisioner giving reasons.

Obviously you are not going to object, you want the decision set aside 
because it was wrong.


>
> It also asks if I want an oral hearing before the Commissioner (and 
> reasons why if I say yes).

Its better to have an oral hearing just in case you need to clarify some 
points with them and vice versa.


>
> The thing is - I asked the Tribunal people recently if I would have a 
> chance to submit extra and new evidence that wasn't in my original claim. 
> For example, I now have a printout of my entire medical history. And I 
> want to submit other documentary evidence as well.

You can do that when you are given a date for the new hearing, send them 
copies by post to arrive no later than 7 days before the hearing date.

>
> I'm not sure if I need to ask the Commissioner to look at this evidence or 
> let it go straight to the new tribunal. I'm not sure how to answer the two 
> qustions on the form. I don't particularly want to appear in person either 
> before the Commissioner or a new tribunal. Is it possible to ask for a 
> "paper hearing" with the Commissioner or ask a representative to attend a 
> hearing? And since it's now a year gone, which way will I best expedite my 
> appeal?
>

If you dont want to go then you can have a paper hearing, if you want to 
send a rep then you opt for an oral hearing which is best IMO.

In message <466f60fc$0$97266$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, 
me  writes
>I applied for DLA 12 months ago. Was refused. Had a tribunal hearing 
>just before Christmas. Their decision went against me. Appealed to 
>Social Security Commisioner's office. They granted me leave to appeal. 
>They said the first tribunal's decision was wrong in law. I now have a 
>letter - Secretary of State's Submission to the Commissioner. There is 
>a submission asking for further findings of facts re my needs. There is 
>a request for a new tribunal hearing (from the Sec of States 
>representative to the Commisioner).
>
>This letter is accompanied by form OSSC3A.
>
>This form asks me to say whether I have any objections to the 
>tribunal's decision being set aside without the Commissioner 
>considering the parties' arguments or without the Commisioner giving 
>reasons.
>
>It also asks if I want an oral hearing before the Commissioner (and 
>reasons why if I say yes).
>
>The thing is - I asked the Tribunal people recently if I would have a 
>chance to submit extra and new evidence that wasn't in my original 
>claim. For example, I now have a printout of my entire medical history. 
>And I want to submit other documentary evidence as well.
>
>I'm not sure if I need to ask the Commissioner to look at this evidence 
>or let it go straight to the new tribunal. I'm not sure how to answer 
>the two qustions on the form. I don't particularly want to appear in 
>person either before the Commissioner or a new tribunal. Is it possible 
>to ask for a "paper hearing" with the Commissioner or ask a 
>representative to attend a hearing? And since it's now a year gone, 
>which way will I best expedite my appeal?

Your appeal to the Commissioner was "on a point of law" - effectively, 
solely about the technicalities - whether the appeal tribunal did their 
job properly.  Usually either you, or the Secretary of State, or both, 
suggest that the tribunal's reasons for their decision are inadequate. 
This is much the most common "point of law" on which appeal tribunals 
are overturned. However, all this merely gets you another go at a 
tribunal; the Commissioner's decision usually has no bearing on the 
rights and wrongs of your particular case.

So you should say you have no objections to the Commissioner simply 
setting aside the tribunal decision, without considering the detailed 
arguments and without giving reasons.  And you should also say that you 
(most certainly) do not want an oral hearing before the Commissioner. 
There is nothing further you can gain at the level of the Commissioner. 
The case will be sent back to a differently constituted tribunal to be 
re-heard.

You can of course submit further evidence to that tribunal.  Remember 
though that the tribunal will be reconsidering the original decision 
maker decision that was taken some time ago, so medical evidence about 
events after that date (such as a deterioration in your health) will be 
irrelevant. You can appear at the re-heard tribunal in person, or not, 
and you can have a representative, or not.  Statistically you have a 
much higher chance of success if you have a competent representative.

I see you have had a characteristically confused and ill-thought out 
response from  "Niteawk" - you can safely ignore anything he posts.

Clive

-- 
Clive Martin
my email address is cliveatcmartindotdemondotcodotuk

"Clive Martin"  wrote in message 
news:bzJ4CXBGn$bGFwq3@cmartin.demon.co.uk...
> In message <466f60fc$0$97266$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, me 
>  writes
>>I applied for DLA 12 months ago. Was refused. Had a tribunal hearing just 
>>before Christmas. Their decision went against me. Appealed to Social 
>>Security Commisioner's office. They granted me leave to appeal. They said 
>>the first tribunal's decision was wrong in law. I now have a letter - 
>>Secretary of State's Submission to the Commissioner. There is a submission 
>>asking for further findings of facts re my needs. There is a request for a 
>>new tribunal hearing (from the Sec of States representative to the 
>>Commisioner).
>>
>>This letter is accompanied by form OSSC3A.
>>
>>This form asks me to say whether I have any objections to the tribunal's 
>>decision being set aside without the Commissioner considering the parties' 
>>arguments or without the Commisioner giving reasons.
>>
>>It also asks if I want an oral hearing before the Commissioner (and 
>>reasons why if I say yes).
>>
>>The thing is - I asked the Tribunal people recently if I would have a 
>>chance to submit extra and new evidence that wasn't in my original claim. 
>>For example, I now have a printout of my entire medical history. And I 
>>want to submit other documentary evidence as well.
>>
>>I'm not sure if I need to ask the Commissioner to look at this evidence or 
>>let it go straight to the new tribunal. I'm not sure how to answer the two 
>>qustions on the form. I don't particularly want to appear in person either 
>>before the Commissioner or a new tribunal. Is it possible to ask for a 
>>"paper hearing" with the Commissioner or ask a representative to attend a 
>>hearing? And since it's now a year gone, which way will I best expedite my 
>>appeal?
>
> Your appeal to the Commissioner was "on a point of law" - effectively, 
> solely about the technicalities - whether the appeal tribunal did their 
> job properly.  Usually either you, or the Secretary of State, or both, 
> suggest that the tribunal's reasons for their decision are inadequate. 
> This is much the most common "point of law" on which appeal tribunals are 
> overturned. However, all this merely gets you another go at a tribunal; 
> the Commissioner's decision usually has no bearing on the rights and 
> wrongs of your particular case.
>
> So you should say you have no objections to the Commissioner simply 
> setting aside the tribunal decision, without considering the detailed 
> arguments and without giving reasons.  And you should also say that you 
> (most certainly) do not want an oral hearing before the Commissioner. 
> There is nothing further you can gain at the level of the Commissioner. 
> The case will be sent back to a differently constituted tribunal to be 
> re-heard.
>
> You can of course submit further evidence to that tribunal.  Remember 
> though that the tribunal will be reconsidering the original decision maker 
> decision that was taken some time ago, so medical evidence about events 
> after that date (such as a deterioration in your health) will be 
> irrelevant. You can appear at the re-heard tribunal in person, or not, and 
> you can have a representative, or not.  Statistically you have a much 
> higher chance of success if you have a competent representative.
>
> I see you have had a characteristically confused and ill-thought out 
> response from  "Niteawk" - you can safely ignore anything he posts.
>

You dont know what you are on about as usual Clive, I can get a point across 
in one line whereas you have taken 3 bloody paragraphs to say what is in 
essence the same thing.

On Jun 13, 3:26 pm, "Niteawk"  wrote:

> You dont know what you are on about as usual Clive, I can get a point across
> in one line whereas you have taken 3 bloody paragraphs to say what is in
> essence the same thing.- Hide quoted text -
>


Actually clive is exactly right, I recently dealt with another case
(not DLA) in which the decision opf the commisioner was similar.  The
commisioner isn't giving a decision on the DLA at all merely the way
the tribunal conducted it's business.  If you opt for an oral hearing
the comissioner will still only consider that aspect and not your ent
to DLA.  Setting it aside without a hearing and going for another
appeal trib hearing is the quickest way forward, though there is no
quick way, it's all relative.

Having the decsion set aside does not mean you will win a subsequent
appeal tribunal, though you may do especially if you have additional
relevant medical evidence (see clives comments).

Clive is long winded but thorough and with social security law the
devil is in the details.

Mike

"me"  wrote in message 
news:466f60fc$0$97266$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>I applied for DLA 12 months ago. Was refused. Had a tribunal hearing just 
>before Christmas. Their decision went against me. Appealed to Social 
>Security Commisioner's office. They granted me leave to appeal. They said 
>the first tribunal's decision was wrong in law. I now have a letter - 
>Secretary of State's Submission to the Commissioner. There is a submission 
>asking for further findings of facts re my needs. There is a request for a 
>new tribunal hearing (from the Sec of States representative to the 
>Commisioner).
>
> This letter is accompanied by form OSSC3A.
>
> This form asks me to say whether I have any objections to the tribunal's 
> decision being set aside without the Commissioner considering the parties' 
> arguments or without the Commisioner giving reasons.

Obviously you are not going to object, you want the decision set aside 
because it was wrong.


>
> It also asks if I want an oral hearing before the Commissioner (and 
> reasons why if I say yes).

Its better to have an oral hearing just in case you need to clarify some 
points with them and vice versa.


>
> The thing is - I asked the Tribunal people recently if I would have a 
> chance to submit extra and new evidence that wasn't in my original claim. 
> For example, I now have a printout of my entire medical history. And I 
> want to submit other documentary evidence as well.

You can do that when you are given a date for the new hearing, send them 
copies by post to arrive no later than 7 days before the hearing date.

>
> I'm not sure if I need to ask the Commissioner to look at this evidence or 
> let it go straight to the new tribunal. I'm not sure how to answer the two 
> qustions on the form. I don't particularly want to appear in person either 
> before the Commissioner or a new tribunal. Is it possible to ask for a 
> "paper hearing" with the Commissioner or ask a representative to attend a 
> hearing? And since it's now a year gone, which way will I best expedite my 
> appeal?
>

If you dont want to go then you can have a paper hearing, if you want to 
send a rep then you opt for an oral hearing which is best IMO.

In message <466f60fc$0$97266$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, 
me  writes
>I applied for DLA 12 months ago. Was refused. Had a tribunal hearing 
>just before Christmas. Their decision went against me. Appealed to 
>Social Security Commisioner's office. They granted me leave to appeal. 
>They said the first tribunal's decision was wrong in law. I now have a 
>letter - Secretary of State's Submission to the Commissioner. There is 
>a submission asking for further findings of facts re my needs. There is 
>a request for a new tribunal hearing (from the Sec of States 
>representative to the Commisioner).
>
>This letter is accompanied by form OSSC3A.
>
>This form asks me to say whether I have any objections to the 
>tribunal's decision being set aside without the Commissioner 
>considering the parties' arguments or without the Commisioner giving 
>reasons.
>
>It also asks if I want an oral hearing before the Commissioner (and 
>reasons why if I say yes).
>
>The thing is - I asked the Tribunal people recently if I would have a 
>chance to submit extra and new evidence that wasn't in my original 
>claim. For example, I now have a printout of my entire medical history. 
>And I want to submit other documentary evidence as well.
>
>I'm not sure if I need to ask the Commissioner to look at this evidence 
>or let it go straight to the new tribunal. I'm not sure how to answer 
>the two qustions on the form. I don't particularly want to appear in 
>person either before the Commissioner or a new tribunal. Is it possible 
>to ask for a "paper hearing" with the Commissioner or ask a 
>representative to attend a hearing? And since it's now a year gone, 
>which way will I best expedite my appeal?

Your appeal to the Commissioner was "on a point of law" - effectively, 
solely about the technicalities - whether the appeal tribunal did their 
job properly.  Usually either you, or the Secretary of State, or both, 
suggest that the tribunal's reasons for their decision are inadequate. 
This is much the most common "point of law" on which appeal tribunals 
are overturned. However, all this merely gets you another go at a 
tribunal; the Commissioner's decision usually has no bearing on the 
rights and wrongs of your particular case.

So you should say you have no objections to the Commissioner simply 
setting aside the tribunal decision, without considering the detailed 
arguments and without giving reasons.  And you should also say that you 
(most certainly) do not want an oral hearing before the Commissioner. 
There is nothing further you can gain at the level of the Commissioner. 
The case will be sent back to a differently constituted tribunal to be 
re-heard.

You can of course submit further evidence to that tribunal.  Remember 
though that the tribunal will be reconsidering the original decision 
maker decision that was taken some time ago, so medical evidence about 
events after that date (such as a deterioration in your health) will be 
irrelevant. You can appear at the re-heard tribunal in person, or not, 
and you can have a representative, or not.  Statistically you have a 
much higher chance of success if you have a competent representative.

I see you have had a characteristically confused and ill-thought out 
response from  "Niteawk" - you can safely ignore anything he posts.

Clive

-- 
Clive Martin
my email address is cliveatcmartindotdemondotcodotuk

"Clive Martin"  wrote in message 
news:bzJ4CXBGn$bGFwq3@cmartin.demon.co.uk...
> In message <466f60fc$0$97266$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, me 
>  writes
>>I applied for DLA 12 months ago. Was refused. Had a tribunal hearing just 
>>before Christmas. Their decision went against me. Appealed to Social 
>>Security Commisioner's office. They granted me leave to appeal. They said 
>>the first tribunal's decision was wrong in law. I now have a letter - 
>>Secretary of State's Submission to the Commissioner. There is a submission 
>>asking for further findings of facts re my needs. There is a request for a 
>>new tribunal hearing (from the Sec of States representative to the 
>>Commisioner).
>>
>>This letter is accompanied by form OSSC3A.
>>
>>This form asks me to say whether I have any objections to the tribunal's 
>>decision being set aside without the Commissioner considering the parties' 
>>arguments or without the Commisioner giving reasons.
>>
>>It also asks if I want an oral hearing before the Commissioner (and 
>>reasons why if I say yes).
>>
>>The thing is - I asked the Tribunal people recently if I would have a 
>>chance to submit extra and new evidence that wasn't in my original claim. 
>>For example, I now have a printout of my entire medical history. And I 
>>want to submit other documentary evidence as well.
>>
>>I'm not sure if I need to ask the Commissioner to look at this evidence or 
>>let it go straight to the new tribunal. I'm not sure how to answer the two 
>>qustions on the form. I don't particularly want to appear in person either 
>>before the Commissioner or a new tribunal. Is it possible to ask for a 
>>"paper hearing" with the Commissioner or ask a representative to attend a 
>>hearing? And since it's now a year gone, which way will I best expedite my 
>>appeal?
>
> Your appeal to the Commissioner was "on a point of law" - effectively, 
> solely about the technicalities - whether the appeal tribunal did their 
> job properly.  Usually either you, or the Secretary of State, or both, 
> suggest that the tribunal's reasons for their decision are inadequate. 
> This is much the most common "point of law" on which appeal tribunals are 
> overturned. However, all this merely gets you another go at a tribunal; 
> the Commissioner's decision usually has no bearing on the rights and 
> wrongs of your particular case.
>
> So you should say you have no objections to the Commissioner simply 
> setting aside the tribunal decision, without considering the detailed 
> arguments and without giving reasons.  And you should also say that you 
> (most certainly) do not want an oral hearing before the Commissioner. 
> There is nothing further you can gain at the level of the Commissioner. 
> The case will be sent back to a differently constituted tribunal to be 
> re-heard.
>
> You can of course submit further evidence to that tribunal.  Remember 
> though that the tribunal will be reconsidering the original decision maker 
> decision that was taken some time ago, so medical evidence about events 
> after that date (such as a deterioration in your health) will be 
> irrelevant. You can appear at the re-heard tribunal in person, or not, and 
> you can have a representative, or not.  Statistically you have a much 
> higher chance of success if you have a competent representative.
>
> I see you have had a characteristically confused and ill-thought out 
> response from  "Niteawk" - you can safely ignore anything he posts.
>

You dont know what you are on about as usual Clive, I can get a point across 
in one line whereas you have taken 3 bloody paragraphs to say what is in 
essence the same thing.

On Jun 13, 3:26 pm, "Niteawk"  wrote:

> You dont know what you are on about as usual Clive, I can get a point across
> in one line whereas you have taken 3 bloody paragraphs to say what is in
> essence the same thing.- Hide quoted text -
>


Actually clive is exactly right, I recently dealt with another case
(not DLA) in which the decision opf the commisioner was similar.  The
commisioner isn't giving a decision on the DLA at all merely the way
the tribunal conducted it's business.  If you opt for an oral hearing
the comissioner will still only consider that aspect and not your ent
to DLA.  Setting it aside without a hearing and going for another
appeal trib hearing is the quickest way forward, though there is no
quick way, it's all relative.

Having the decsion set aside does not mean you will win a subsequent
appeal tribunal, though you may do especially if you have additional
relevant medical evidence (see clives comments).

Clive is long winded but thorough and with social security law the
devil is in the details.

Mike

"me"  wrote in message 
news:466f60fc$0$97266$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>I applied for DLA 12 months ago. Was refused. Had a tribunal hearing just 
>before Christmas. Their decision went against me. Appealed to Social 
>Security Commisioner's office. They granted me leave to appeal. They said 
>the first tribunal's decision was wrong in law. I now have a letter - 
>Secretary of State's Submission to the Commissioner. There is a submission 
>asking for further findings of facts re my needs. There is a request for a 
>new tribunal hearing (from the Sec of States representative to the 
>Commisioner).
>
> This letter is accompanied by form OSSC3A.
>
> This form asks me to say whether I have any objections to the tribunal's 
> decision being set aside without the Commissioner considering the parties' 
> arguments or without the Commisioner giving reasons.

Obviously you are not going to object, you want the decision set aside 
because it was wrong.


>
> It also asks if I want an oral hearing before the Commissioner (and 
> reasons why if I say yes).

Its better to have an oral hearing just in case you need to clarify some 
points with them and vice versa.


>
> The thing is - I asked the Tribunal people recently if I would have a 
> chance to submit extra and new evidence that wasn't in my original claim. 
> For example, I now have a printout of my entire medical history. And I 
> want to submit other documentary evidence as well.

You can do that when you are given a date for the new hearing, send them 
copies by post to arrive no later than 7 days before the hearing date.

>
> I'm not sure if I need to ask the Commissioner to look at this evidence or 
> let it go straight to the new tribunal. I'm not sure how to answer the two 
> qustions on the form. I don't particularly want to appear in person either 
> before the Commissioner or a new tribunal. Is it possible to ask for a 
> "paper hearing" with the Commissioner or ask a representative to attend a 
> hearing? And since it's now a year gone, which way will I best expedite my 
> appeal?
>

If you dont want to go then you can have a paper hearing, if you want to 
send a rep then you opt for an oral hearing which is best IMO.

In message <466f60fc$0$97266$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, 
me  writes
>I applied for DLA 12 months ago. Was refused. Had a tribunal hearing 
>just before Christmas. Their decision went against me. Appealed to 
>Social Security Commisioner's office. They granted me leave to appeal. 
>They said the first tribunal's decision was wrong in law. I now have a 
>letter - Secretary of State's Submission to the Commissioner. There is 
>a submission asking for further findings of facts re my needs. There is 
>a request for a new tribunal hearing (from the Sec of States 
>representative to the Commisioner).
>
>This letter is accompanied by form OSSC3A.
>
>This form asks me to say whether I have any objections to the 
>tribunal's decision being set aside without the Commissioner 
>considering the parties' arguments or without the Commisioner giving 
>reasons.
>
>It also asks if I want an oral hearing before the Commissioner (and 
>reasons why if I say yes).
>
>The thing is - I asked the Tribunal people recently if I would have a 
>chance to submit extra and new evidence that wasn't in my original 
>claim. For example, I now have a printout of my entire medical history. 
>And I want to submit other documentary evidence as well.
>
>I'm not sure if I need to ask the Commissioner to look at this evidence 
>or let it go straight to the new tribunal. I'm not sure how to answer 
>the two qustions on the form. I don't particularly want to appear in 
>person either before the Commissioner or a new tribunal. Is it possible 
>to ask for a "paper hearing" with the Commissioner or ask a 
>representative to attend a hearing? And since it's now a year gone, 
>which way will I best expedite my appeal?

Your appeal to the Commissioner was "on a point of law" - effectively, 
solely about the technicalities - whether the appeal tribunal did their 
job properly.  Usually either you, or the Secretary of State, or both, 
suggest that the tribunal's reasons for their decision are inadequate. 
This is much the most common "point of law" on which appeal tribunals 
are overturned. However, all this merely gets you another go at a 
tribunal; the Commissioner's decision usually has no bearing on the 
rights and wrongs of your particular case.

So you should say you have no objections to the Commissioner simply 
setting aside the tribunal decision, without considering the detailed 
arguments and without giving reasons.  And you should also say that you 
(most certainly) do not want an oral hearing before the Commissioner. 
There is nothing further you can gain at the level of the Commissioner. 
The case will be sent back to a differently constituted tribunal to be 
re-heard.

You can of course submit further evidence to that tribunal.  Remember 
though that the tribunal will be reconsidering the original decision 
maker decision that was taken some time ago, so medical evidence about 
events after that date (such as a deterioration in your health) will be 
irrelevant. You can appear at the re-heard tribunal in person, or not, 
and you can have a representative, or not.  Statistically you have a 
much higher chance of success if you have a competent representative.

I see you have had a characteristically confused and ill-thought out 
response from  "Niteawk" - you can safely ignore anything he posts.

Clive

-- 
Clive Martin
my email address is cliveatcmartindotdemondotcodotuk

"Clive Martin"  wrote in message 
news:bzJ4CXBGn$bGFwq3@cmartin.demon.co.uk...
> In message <466f60fc$0$97266$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, me 
>  writes
>>I applied for DLA 12 months ago. Was refused. Had a tribunal hearing just 
>>before Christmas. Their decision went against me. Appealed to Social 
>>Security Commisioner's office. They granted me leave to appeal. They said 
>>the first tribunal's decision was wrong in law. I now have a letter - 
>>Secretary of State's Submission to the Commissioner. There is a submission 
>>asking for further findings of facts re my needs. There is a request for a 
>>new tribunal hearing (from the Sec of States representative to the 
>>Commisioner).
>>
>>This letter is accompanied by form OSSC3A.
>>
>>This form asks me to say whether I have any objections to the tribunal's 
>>decision being set aside without the Commissioner considering the parties' 
>>arguments or without the Commisioner giving reasons.
>>
>>It also asks if I want an oral hearing before the Commissioner (and 
>>reasons why if I say yes).
>>
>>The thing is - I asked the Tribunal people recently if I would have a 
>>chance to submit extra and new evidence that wasn't in my original claim. 
>>For example, I now have a printout of my entire medical history. And I 
>>want to submit other documentary evidence as well.
>>
>>I'm not sure if I need to ask the Commissioner to look at this evidence or 
>>let it go straight to the new tribunal. I'm not sure how to answer the two 
>>qustions on the form. I don't particularly want to appear in person either 
>>before the Commissioner or a new tribunal. Is it possible to ask for a 
>>"paper hearing" with the Commissioner or ask a representative to attend a 
>>hearing? And since it's now a year gone, which way will I best expedite my 
>>appeal?
>
> Your appeal to the Commissioner was "on a point of law" - effectively, 
> solely about the technicalities - whether the appeal tribunal did their 
> job properly.  Usually either you, or the Secretary of State, or both, 
> suggest that the tribunal's reasons for their decision are inadequate. 
> This is much the most common "point of law" on which appeal tribunals are 
> overturned. However, all this merely gets you another go at a tribunal; 
> the Commissioner's decision usually has no bearing on the rights and 
> wrongs of your particular case.
>
> So you should say you have no objections to the Commissioner simply 
> setting aside the tribunal decision, without considering the detailed 
> arguments and without giving reasons.  And you should also say that you 
> (most certainly) do not want an oral hearing before the Commissioner. 
> There is nothing further you can gain at the level of the Commissioner. 
> The case will be sent back to a differently constituted tribunal to be 
> re-heard.
>
> You can of course submit further evidence to that tribunal.  Remember 
> though that the tribunal will be reconsidering the original decision maker 
> decision that was taken some time ago, so medical evidence about events 
> after that date (such as a deterioration in your health) will be 
> irrelevant. You can appear at the re-heard tribunal in person, or not, and 
> you can have a representative, or not.  Statistically you have a much 
> higher chance of success if you have a competent representative.
>
> I see you have had a characteristically confused and ill-thought out 
> response from  "Niteawk" - you can safely ignore anything he posts.
>

You dont know what you are on about as usual Clive, I can get a point across 
in one line whereas you have taken 3 bloody paragraphs to say what is in 
essence the same thing.

On Jun 13, 3:26 pm, "Niteawk"  wrote:

> You dont know what you are on about as usual Clive, I can get a point across
> in one line whereas you have taken 3 bloody paragraphs to say what is in
> essence the same thing.- Hide quoted text -
>


Actually clive is exactly right, I recently dealt with another case
(not DLA) in which the decision opf the commisioner was similar.  The
commisioner isn't giving a decision on the DLA at all merely the way
the tribunal conducted it's business.  If you opt for an oral hearing
the comissioner will still only consider that aspect and not your ent
to DLA.  Setting it aside without a hearing and going for another
appeal trib hearing is the quickest way forward, though there is no
quick way, it's all relative.

Having the decsion set aside does not mean you will win a subsequent
appeal tribunal, though you may do especially if you have additional
relevant medical evidence (see clives comments).

Clive is long winded but thorough and with social security law the
devil is in the details.

Mike

"me"  wrote in message 
news:466f60fc$0$97266$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>I applied for DLA 12 months ago. Was refused. Had a tribunal hearing just 
>before Christmas. Their decision went against me. Appealed to Social 
>Security Commisioner's office. They granted me leave to appeal. They said 
>the first tribunal's decision was wrong in law. I now have a letter - 
>Secretary of State's Submission to the Commissioner. There is a submission 
>asking for further findings of facts re my needs. There is a request for a 
>new tribunal hearing (from the Sec of States representative to the 
>Commisioner).
>
> This letter is accompanied by form OSSC3A.
>
> This form asks me to say whether I have any objections to the tribunal's 
> decision being set aside without the Commissioner considering the parties' 
> arguments or without the Commisioner giving reasons.

Obviously you are not going to object, you want the decision set aside 
because it was wrong.


>
> It also asks if I want an oral hearing before the Commissioner (and 
> reasons why if I say yes).

Its better to have an oral hearing just in case you need to clarify some 
points with them and vice versa.


>
> The thing is - I asked the Tribunal people recently if I would have a 
> chance to submit extra and new evidence that wasn't in my original claim. 
> For example, I now have a printout of my entire medical history. And I 
> want to submit other documentary evidence as well.

You can do that when you are given a date for the new hearing, send them 
copies by post to arrive no later than 7 days before the hearing date.

>
> I'm not sure if I need to ask the Commissioner to look at this evidence or 
> let it go straight to the new tribunal. I'm not sure how to answer the two 
> qustions on the form. I don't particularly want to appear in person either 
> before the Commissioner or a new tribunal. Is it possible to ask for a 
> "paper hearing" with the Commissioner or ask a representative to attend a 
> hearing? And since it's now a year gone, which way will I best expedite my 
> appeal?
>

If you dont want to go then you can have a paper hearing, if you want to 
send a rep then you opt for an oral hearing which is best IMO.

In message <466f60fc$0$97266$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, 
me  writes
>I applied for DLA 12 months ago. Was refused. Had a tribunal hearing 
>just before Christmas. Their decision went against me. Appealed to 
>Social Security Commisioner's office. They granted me leave to appeal. 
>They said the first tribunal's decision was wrong in law. I now have a 
>letter - Secretary of State's Submission to the Commissioner. There is 
>a submission asking for further findings of facts re my needs. There is 
>a request for a new tribunal hearing (from the Sec of States 
>representative to the Commisioner).
>
>This letter is accompanied by form OSSC3A.
>
>This form asks me to say whether I have any objections to the 
>tribunal's decision being set aside without the Commissioner 
>considering the parties' arguments or without the Commisioner giving 
>reasons.
>
>It also asks if I want an oral hearing before the Commissioner (and 
>reasons why if I say yes).
>
>The thing is - I asked the Tribunal people recently if I would have a 
>chance to submit extra and new evidence that wasn't in my original 
>claim. For example, I now have a printout of my entire medical history. 
>And I want to submit other documentary evidence as well.
>
>I'm not sure if I need to ask the Commissioner to look at this evidence 
>or let it go straight to the new tribunal. I'm not sure how to answer 
>the two qustions on the form. I don't particularly want to appear in 
>person either before the Commissioner or a new tribunal. Is it possible 
>to ask for a "paper hearing" with the Commissioner or ask a 
>representative to attend a hearing? And since it's now a year gone, 
>which way will I best expedite my appeal?

Your appeal to the Commissioner was "on a point of law" - effectively, 
solely about the technicalities - whether the appeal tribunal did their 
job properly.  Usually either you, or the Secretary of State, or both, 
suggest that the tribunal's reasons for their decision are inadequate. 
This is much the most common "point of law" on which appeal tribunals 
are overturned. However, all this merely gets you another go at a 
tribunal; the Commissioner's decision usually has no bearing on the 
rights and wrongs of your particular case.

So you should say you have no objections to the Commissioner simply 
setting aside the tribunal decision, without considering the detailed 
arguments and without giving reasons.  And you should also say that you 
(most certainly) do not want an oral hearing before the Commissioner. 
There is nothing further you can gain at the level of the Commissioner. 
The case will be sent back to a differently constituted tribunal to be 
re-heard.

You can of course submit further evidence to that tribunal.  Remember 
though that the tribunal will be reconsidering the original decision 
maker decision that was taken some time ago, so medical evidence about 
events after that date (such as a deterioration in your health) will be 
irrelevant. You can appear at the re-heard tribunal in person, or not, 
and you can have a representative, or not.  Statistically you have a 
much higher chance of success if you have a competent representative.

I see you have had a characteristically confused and ill-thought out 
response from  "Niteawk" - you can safely ignore anything he posts.

Clive

-- 
Clive Martin
my email address is cliveatcmartindotdemondotcodotuk

"Clive Martin"  wrote in message 
news:bzJ4CXBGn$bGFwq3@cmartin.demon.co.uk...
> In message <466f60fc$0$97266$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, me 
>  writes
>>I applied for DLA 12 months ago. Was refused. Had a tribunal hearing just 
>>before Christmas. Their decision went against me. Appealed to Social 
>>Security Commisioner's office. They granted me leave to appeal. They said 
>>the first tribunal's decision was wrong in law. I now have a letter - 
>>Secretary of State's Submission to the Commissioner. There is a submission 
>>asking for further findings of facts re my needs. There is a request for a 
>>new tribunal hearing (from the Sec of States representative to the 
>>Commisioner).
>>
>>This letter is accompanied by form OSSC3A.
>>
>>This form asks me to say whether I have any objections to the tribunal's 
>>decision being set aside without the Commissioner considering the parties' 
>>arguments or without the Commisioner giving reasons.
>>
>>It also asks if I want an oral hearing before the Commissioner (and 
>>reasons why if I say yes).
>>
>>The thing is - I asked the Tribunal people recently if I would have a 
>>chance to submit extra and new evidence that wasn't in my original claim. 
>>For example, I now have a printout of my entire medical history. And I 
>>want to submit other documentary evidence as well.
>>
>>I'm not sure if I need to ask the Commissioner to look at this evidence or 
>>let it go straight to the new tribunal. I'm not sure how to answer the two 
>>qustions on the form. I don't particularly want to appear in person either 
>>before the Commissioner or a new tribunal. Is it possible to ask for a 
>>"paper hearing" with the Commissioner or ask a representative to attend a 
>>hearing? And since it's now a year gone, which way will I best expedite my 
>>appeal?
>
> Your appeal to the Commissioner was "on a point of law" - effectively, 
> solely about the technicalities - whether the appeal tribunal did their 
> job properly.  Usually either you, or the Secretary of State, or both, 
> suggest that the tribunal's reasons for their decision are inadequate. 
> This is much the most common "point of law" on which appeal tribunals are 
> overturned. However, all this merely gets you another go at a tribunal; 
> the Commissioner's decision usually has no bearing on the rights and 
> wrongs of your particular case.
>
> So you should say you have no objections to the Commissioner simply 
> setting aside the tribunal decision, without considering the detailed 
> arguments and without giving reasons.  And you should also say that you 
> (most certainly) do not want an oral hearing before the Commissioner. 
> There is nothing further you can gain at the level of the Commissioner. 
> The case will be sent back to a differently constituted tribunal to be 
> re-heard.
>
> You can of course submit further evidence to that tribunal.  Remember 
> though that the tribunal will be reconsidering the original decision maker 
> decision that was taken some time ago, so medical evidence about events 
> after that date (such as a deterioration in your health) will be 
> irrelevant. You can appear at the re-heard tribunal in person, or not, and 
> you can have a representative, or not.  Statistically you have a much 
> higher chance of success if you have a competent representative.
>
> I see you have had a characteristically confused and ill-thought out 
> response from  "Niteawk" - you can safely ignore anything he posts.
>

You dont know what you are on about as usual Clive, I can get a point across 
in one line whereas you have taken 3 bloody paragraphs to say what is in 
essence the same thing.

On Jun 13, 3:26 pm, "Niteawk"  wrote:

> You dont know what you are on about as usual Clive, I can get a point across
> in one line whereas you have taken 3 bloody paragraphs to say what is in
> essence the same thing.- Hide quoted text -
>


Actually clive is exactly right, I recently dealt with another case
(not DLA) in which the decision opf the commisioner was similar.  The
commisioner isn't giving a decision on the DLA at all merely the way
the tribunal conducted it's business.  If you opt for an oral hearing
the comissioner will still only consider that aspect and not your ent
to DLA.  Setting it aside without a hearing and going for another
appeal trib hearing is the quickest way forward, though there is no
quick way, it's all relative.

Having the decsion set aside does not mean you will win a subsequent
appeal tribunal, though you may do especially if you have additional
relevant medical evidence (see clives comments).

Clive is long winded but thorough and with social security law the
devil is in the details.

Mike

"me"  wrote in message 
news:466f60fc$0$97266$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>I applied for DLA 12 months ago. Was refused. Had a tribunal hearing just 
>before Christmas. Their decision went against me. Appealed to Social 
>Security Commisioner's office. They granted me leave to appeal. They said 
>the first tribunal's decision was wrong in law. I now have a letter - 
>Secretary of State's Submission to the Commissioner. There is a submission 
>asking for further findings of facts re my needs. There is a request for a 
>new tribunal hearing (from the Sec of States representative to the 
>Commisioner).
>
> This letter is accompanied by form OSSC3A.
>
> This form asks me to say whether I have any objections to the tribunal's 
> decision being set aside without the Commissioner considering the parties' 
> arguments or without the Commisioner giving reasons.

Obviously you are not going to object, you want the decision set aside 
because it was wrong.


>
> It also asks if I want an oral hearing before the Commissioner (and 
> reasons why if I say yes).

Its better to have an oral hearing just in case you need to clarify some 
points with them and vice versa.


>
> The thing is - I asked the Tribunal people recently if I would have a 
> chance to submit extra and new evidence that wasn't in my original claim. 
> For example, I now have a printout of my entire medical history. And I 
> want to submit other documentary evidence as well.

You can do that when you are given a date for the new hearing, send them 
copies by post to arrive no later than 7 days before the hearing date.

>
> I'm not sure if I need to ask the Commissioner to look at this evidence or 
> let it go straight to the new tribunal. I'm not sure how to answer the two 
> qustions on the form. I don't particularly want to appear in person either 
> before the Commissioner or a new tribunal. Is it possible to ask for a 
> "paper hearing" with the Commissioner or ask a representative to attend a 
> hearing? And since it's now a year gone, which way will I best expedite my 
> appeal?
>

If you dont want to go then you can have a paper hearing, if you want to 
send a rep then you opt for an oral hearing which is best IMO.

In message <466f60fc$0$97266$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, 
me  writes
>I applied for DLA 12 months ago. Was refused. Had a tribunal hearing 
>just before Christmas. Their decision went against me. Appealed to 
>Social Security Commisioner's office. They granted me leave to appeal. 
>They said the first tribunal's decision was wrong in law. I now have a 
>letter - Secretary of State's Submission to the Commissioner. There is 
>a submission asking for further findings of facts re my needs. There is 
>a request for a new tribunal hearing (from the Sec of States 
>representative to the Commisioner).
>
>This letter is accompanied by form OSSC3A.
>
>This form asks me to say whether I have any objections to the 
>tribunal's decision being set aside without the Commissioner 
>considering the parties' arguments or without the Commisioner giving 
>reasons.
>
>It also asks if I want an oral hearing before the Commissioner (and 
>reasons why if I say yes).
>
>The thing is - I asked the Tribunal people recently if I would have a 
>chance to submit extra and new evidence that wasn't in my original 
>claim. For example, I now have a printout of my entire medical history. 
>And I want to submit other documentary evidence as well.
>
>I'm not sure if I need to ask the Commissioner to look at this evidence 
>or let it go straight to the new tribunal. I'm not sure how to answer 
>the two qustions on the form. I don't particularly want to appear in 
>person either before the Commissioner or a new tribunal. Is it possible 
>to ask for a "paper hearing" with the Commissioner or ask a 
>representative to attend a hearing? And since it's now a year gone, 
>which way will I best expedite my appeal?

Your appeal to the Commissioner was "on a point of law" - effectively, 
solely about the technicalities - whether the appeal tribunal did their 
job properly.  Usually either you, or the Secretary of State, or both, 
suggest that the tribunal's reasons for their decision are inadequate. 
This is much the most common "point of law" on which appeal tribunals 
are overturned. However, all this merely gets you another go at a 
tribunal; the Commissioner's decision usually has no bearing on the 
rights and wrongs of your particular case.

So you should say you have no objections to the Commissioner simply 
setting aside the tribunal decision, without considering the detailed 
arguments and without giving reasons.  And you should also say that you 
(most certainly) do not want an oral hearing before the Commissioner. 
There is nothing further you can gain at the level of the Commissioner. 
The case will be sent back to a differently constituted tribunal to be 
re-heard.

You can of course submit further evidence to that tribunal.  Remember 
though that the tribunal will be reconsidering the original decision 
maker decision that was taken some time ago, so medical evidence about 
events after that date (such as a deterioration in your health) will be 
irrelevant. You can appear at the re-heard tribunal in person, or not, 
and you can have a representative, or not.  Statistically you have a 
much higher chance of success if you have a competent representative.

I see you have had a characteristically confused and ill-thought out 
response from  "Niteawk" - you can safely ignore anything he posts.

Clive

-- 
Clive Martin
my email address is cliveatcmartindotdemondotcodotuk

"Clive Martin"  wrote in message 
news:bzJ4CXBGn$bGFwq3@cmartin.demon.co.uk...
> In message <466f60fc$0$97266$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, me 
>  writes
>>I applied for DLA 12 months ago. Was refused. Had a tribunal hearing just 
>>before Christmas. Their decision went against me. Appealed to Social 
>>Security Commisioner's office. They granted me leave to appeal. They said 
>>the first tribunal's decision was wrong in law. I now have a letter - 
>>Secretary of State's Submission to the Commissioner. There is a submission 
>>asking for further findings of facts re my needs. There is a request for a 
>>new tribunal hearing (from the Sec of States representative to the 
>>Commisioner).
>>
>>This letter is accompanied by form OSSC3A.
>>
>>This form asks me to say whether I have any objections to the tribunal's 
>>decision being set aside without the Commissioner considering the parties' 
>>arguments or without the Commisioner giving reasons.
>>
>>It also asks if I want an oral hearing before the Commissioner (and 
>>reasons why if I say yes).
>>
>>The thing is - I asked the Tribunal people recently if I would have a 
>>chance to submit extra and new evidence that wasn't in my original claim. 
>>For example, I now have a printout of my entire medical history. And I 
>>want to submit other documentary evidence as well.
>>
>>I'm not sure if I need to ask the Commissioner to look at this evidence or 
>>let it go straight to the new tribunal. I'm not sure how to answer the two 
>>qustions on the form. I don't particularly want to appear in person either 
>>before the Commissioner or a new tribunal. Is it possible to ask for a 
>>"paper hearing" with the Commissioner or ask a representative to attend a 
>>hearing? And since it's now a year gone, which way will I best expedite my 
>>appeal?
>
> Your appeal to the Commissioner was "on a point of law" - effectively, 
> solely about the technicalities - whether the appeal tribunal did their 
> job properly.  Usually either you, or the Secretary of State, or both, 
> suggest that the tribunal's reasons for their decision are inadequate. 
> This is much the most common "point of law" on which appeal tribunals are 
> overturned. However, all this merely gets you another go at a tribunal; 
> the Commissioner's decision usually has no bearing on the rights and 
> wrongs of your particular case.
>
> So you should say you have no objections to the Commissioner simply 
> setting aside the tribunal decision, without considering the detailed 
> arguments and without giving reasons.  And you should also say that you 
> (most certainly) do not want an oral hearing before the Commissioner. 
> There is nothing further you can gain at the level of the Commissioner. 
> The case will be sent back to a differently constituted tribunal to be 
> re-heard.
>
> You can of course submit further evidence to that tribunal.  Remember 
> though that the tribunal will be reconsidering the original decision maker 
> decision that was taken some time ago, so medical evidence about events 
> after that date (such as a deterioration in your health) will be 
> irrelevant. You can appear at the re-heard tribunal in person, or not, and 
> you can have a representative, or not.  Statistically you have a much 
> higher chance of success if you have a competent representative.
>
> I see you have had a characteristically confused and ill-thought out 
> response from  "Niteawk" - you can safely ignore anything he posts.
>

You dont know what you are on about as usual Clive, I can get a point across 
in one line whereas you have taken 3 bloody paragraphs to say what is in 
essence the same thing.

On Jun 13, 3:26 pm, "Niteawk"  wrote:

> You dont know what you are on about as usual Clive, I can get a point across
> in one line whereas you have taken 3 bloody paragraphs to say what is in
> essence the same thing.- Hide quoted text -
>


Actually clive is exactly right, I recently dealt with another case
(not DLA) in which the decision opf the commisioner was similar.  The
commisioner isn't giving a decision on the DLA at all merely the way
the tribunal conducted it's business.  If you opt for an oral hearing
the comissioner will still only consider that aspect and not your ent
to DLA.  Setting it aside without a hearing and going for another
appeal trib hearing is the quickest way forward, though there is no
quick way, it's all relative.

Having the decsion set aside does not mean you will win a subsequent
appeal tribunal, though you may do especially if you have additional
relevant medical evidence (see clives comments).

Clive is long winded but thorough and with social security law the
devil is in the details.

Mike

"me"  wrote in message 
news:466f60fc$0$97266$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>I applied for DLA 12 months ago. Was refused. Had a tribunal hearing just 
>before Christmas. Their decision went against me. Appealed to Social 
>Security Commisioner's office. They granted me leave to appeal. They said 
>the first tribunal's decision was wrong in law. I now have a letter - 
>Secretary of State's Submission to the Commissioner. There is a submission 
>asking for further findings of facts re my needs. There is a request for a 
>new tribunal hearing (from the Sec of States representative to the 
>Commisioner).
>
> This letter is accompanied by form OSSC3A.
>
> This form asks me to say whether I have any objections to the tribunal's 
> decision being set aside without the Commissioner considering the parties' 
> arguments or without the Commisioner giving reasons.

Obviously you are not going to object, you want the decision set aside 
because it was wrong.


>
> It also asks if I want an oral hearing before the Commissioner (and 
> reasons why if I say yes).

Its better to have an oral hearing just in case you need to clarify some 
points with them and vice versa.


>
> The thing is - I asked the Tribunal people recently if I would have a 
> chance to submit extra and new evidence that wasn't in my original claim. 
> For example, I now have a printout of my entire medical history. And I 
> want to submit other documentary evidence as well.

You can do that when you are given a date for the new hearing, send them 
copies by post to arrive no later than 7 days before the hearing date.

>
> I'm not sure if I need to ask the Commissioner to look at this evidence or 
> let it go straight to the new tribunal. I'm not sure how to answer the two 
> qustions on the form. I don't particularly want to appear in person either 
> before the Commissioner or a new tribunal. Is it possible to ask for a 
> "paper hearing" with the Commissioner or ask a representative to attend a 
> hearing? And since it's now a year gone, which way will I best expedite my 
> appeal?
>

If you dont want to go then you can have a paper hearing, if you want to 
send a rep then you opt for an oral hearing which is best IMO.

In message <466f60fc$0$97266$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, 
me  writes
>I applied for DLA 12 months ago. Was refused. Had a tribunal hearing 
>just before Christmas. Their decision went against me. Appealed to 
>Social Security Commisioner's office. They granted me leave to appeal. 
>They said the first tribunal's decision was wrong in law. I now have a 
>letter - Secretary of State's Submission to the Commissioner. There is 
>a submission asking for further findings of facts re my needs. There is 
>a request for a new tribunal hearing (from the Sec of States 
>representative to the Commisioner).
>
>This letter is accompanied by form OSSC3A.
>
>This form asks me to say whether I have any objections to the 
>tribunal's decision being set aside without the Commissioner 
>considering the parties' arguments or without the Commisioner giving 
>reasons.
>
>It also asks if I want an oral hearing before the Commissioner (and 
>reasons why if I say yes).
>
>The thing is - I asked the Tribunal people recently if I would have a 
>chance to submit extra and new evidence that wasn't in my original 
>claim. For example, I now have a printout of my entire medical history. 
>And I want to submit other documentary evidence as well.
>
>I'm not sure if I need to ask the Commissioner to look at this evidence 
>or let it go straight to the new tribunal. I'm not sure how to answer 
>the two qustions on the form. I don't particularly want to appear in 
>person either before the Commissioner or a new tribunal. Is it possible 
>to ask for a "paper hearing" with the Commissioner or ask a 
>representative to attend a hearing? And since it's now a year gone, 
>which way will I best expedite my appeal?

Your appeal to the Commissioner was "on a point of law" - effectively, 
solely about the technicalities - whether the appeal tribunal did their 
job properly.  Usually either you, or the Secretary of State, or both, 
suggest that the tribunal's reasons for their decision are inadequate. 
This is much the most common "point of law" on which appeal tribunals 
are overturned. However, all this merely gets you another go at a 
tribunal; the Commissioner's decision usually has no bearing on the 
rights and wrongs of your particular case.

So you should say you have no objections to the Commissioner simply 
setting aside the tribunal decision, without considering the detailed 
arguments and without giving reasons.  And you should also say that you 
(most certainly) do not want an oral hearing before the Commissioner. 
There is nothing further you can gain at the level of the Commissioner. 
The case will be sent back to a differently constituted tribunal to be 
re-heard.

You can of course submit further evidence to that tribunal.  Remember 
though that the tribunal will be reconsidering the original decision 
maker decision that was taken some time ago, so medical evidence about 
events after that date (such as a deterioration in your health) will be 
irrelevant. You can appear at the re-heard tribunal in person, or not, 
and you can have a representative, or not.  Statistically you have a 
much higher chance of success if you have a competent representative.

I see you have had a characteristically confused and ill-thought out 
response from  "Niteawk" - you can safely ignore anything he posts.

Clive

-- 
Clive Martin
my email address is cliveatcmartindotdemondotcodotuk

"Clive Martin"  wrote in message 
news:bzJ4CXBGn$bGFwq3@cmartin.demon.co.uk...
> In message <466f60fc$0$97266$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, me 
>  writes
>>I applied for DLA 12 months ago. Was refused. Had a tribunal hearing just 
>>before Christmas. Their decision went against me. Appealed to Social 
>>Security Commisioner's office. They granted me leave to appeal. They said 
>>the first tribunal's decision was wrong in law. I now have a letter - 
>>Secretary of State's Submission to the Commissioner. There is a submission 
>>asking for further findings of facts re my needs. There is a request for a 
>>new tribunal hearing (from the Sec of States representative to the 
>>Commisioner).
>>
>>This letter is accompanied by form OSSC3A.
>>
>>This form asks me to say whether I have any objections to the tribunal's 
>>decision being set aside without the Commissioner considering the parties' 
>>arguments or without the Commisioner giving reasons.
>>
>>It also asks if I want an oral hearing before the Commissioner (and 
>>reasons why if I say yes).
>>
>>The thing is - I asked the Tribunal people recently if I would have a 
>>chance to submit extra and new evidence that wasn't in my original claim. 
>>For example, I now have a printout of my entire medical history. And I 
>>want to submit other documentary evidence as well.
>>
>>I'm not sure if I need to ask the Commissioner to look at this evidence or 
>>let it go straight to the new tribunal. I'm not sure how to answer the two 
>>qustions on the form. I don't particularly want to appear in person either 
>>before the Commissioner or a new tribunal. Is it possible to ask for a 
>>"paper hearing" with the Commissioner or ask a representative to attend a 
>>hearing? And since it's now a year gone, which way will I best expedite my 
>>appeal?
>
> Your appeal to the Commissioner was "on a point of law" - effectively, 
> solely about the technicalities - whether the appeal tribunal did their 
> job properly.  Usually either you, or the Secretary of State, or both, 
> suggest that the tribunal's reasons for their decision are inadequate. 
> This is much the most common "point of law" on which appeal tribunals are 
> overturned. However, all this merely gets you another go at a tribunal; 
> the Commissioner's decision usually has no bearing on the rights and 
> wrongs of your particular case.
>
> So you should say you have no objections to the Commissioner simply 
> setting aside the tribunal decision, without considering the detailed 
> arguments and without giving reasons.  And you should also say that you 
> (most certainly) do not want an oral hearing before the Commissioner. 
> There is nothing further you can gain at the level of the Commissioner. 
> The case will be sent back to a differently constituted tribunal to be 
> re-heard.
>
> You can of course submit further evidence to that tribunal.  Remember 
> though that the tribunal will be reconsidering the original decision maker 
> decision that was taken some time ago, so medical evidence about events 
> after that date (such as a deterioration in your health) will be 
> irrelevant. You can appear at the re-heard tribunal in person, or not, and 
> you can have a representative, or not.  Statistically you have a much 
> higher chance of success if you have a competent representative.
>
> I see you have had a characteristically confused and ill-thought out 
> response from  "Niteawk" - you can safely ignore anything he posts.
>

You dont know what you are on about as usual Clive, I can get a point across 
in one line whereas you have taken 3 bloody paragraphs to say what is in 
essence the same thing.

On Jun 13, 3:26 pm, "Niteawk"  wrote:

> You dont know what you are on about as usual Clive, I can get a point across
> in one line whereas you have taken 3 bloody paragraphs to say what is in
> essence the same thing.- Hide quoted text -
>


Actually clive is exactly right, I recently dealt with another case
(not DLA) in which the decision opf the commisioner was similar.  The
commisioner isn't giving a decision on the DLA at all merely the way
the tribunal conducted it's business.  If you opt for an oral hearing
the comissioner will still only consider that aspect and not your ent
to DLA.  Setting it aside without a hearing and going for another
appeal trib hearing is the quickest way forward, though there is no
quick way, it's all relative.

Having the decsion set aside does not mean you will win a subsequent
appeal tribunal, though you may do especially if you have additional
relevant medical evidence (see clives comments).

Clive is long winded but thorough and with social security law the
devil is in the details.

Mike

"me"  wrote in message 
news:466f60fc$0$97266$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>I applied for DLA 12 months ago. Was refused. Had a tribunal hearing just 
>before Christmas. Their decision went against me. Appealed to Social 
>Security Commisioner's office. They granted me leave to appeal. They said 
>the first tribunal's decision was wrong in law. I now have a letter - 
>Secretary of State's Submission to the Commissioner. There is a submission 
>asking for further findings of facts re my needs. There is a request for a 
>new tribunal hearing (from the Sec of States representative to the 
>Commisioner).
>
> This letter is accompanied by form OSSC3A.
>
> This form asks me to say whether I have any objections to the tribunal's 
> decision being set aside without the Commissioner considering the parties' 
> arguments or without the Commisioner giving reasons.

Obviously you are not going to object, you want the decision set aside 
because it was wrong.


>
> It also asks if I want an oral hearing before the Commissioner (and 
> reasons why if I say yes).

Its better to have an oral hearing just in case you need to clarify some 
points with them and vice versa.


>
> The thing is - I asked the Tribunal people recently if I would have a 
> chance to submit extra and new evidence that wasn't in my original claim. 
> For example, I now have a printout of my entire medical history. And I 
> want to submit other documentary evidence as well.

You can do that when you are given a date for the new hearing, send them 
copies by post to arrive no later than 7 days before the hearing date.

>
> I'm not sure if I need to ask the Commissioner to look at this evidence or 
> let it go straight to the new tribunal. I'm not sure how to answer the two 
> qustions on the form. I don't particularly want to appear in person either 
> before the Commissioner or a new tribunal. Is it possible to ask for a 
> "paper hearing" with the Commissioner or ask a representative to attend a 
> hearing? And since it's now a year gone, which way will I best expedite my 
> appeal?
>

If you dont want to go then you can have a paper hearing, if you want to 
send a rep then you opt for an oral hearing which is best IMO.

In message <466f60fc$0$97266$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, 
me  writes
>I applied for DLA 12 months ago. Was refused. Had a tribunal hearing 
>just before Christmas. Their decision went against me. Appealed to 
>Social Security Commisioner's office. They granted me leave to appeal. 
>They said the first tribunal's decision was wrong in law. I now have a 
>letter - Secretary of State's Submission to the Commissioner. There is 
>a submission asking for further findings of facts re my needs. There is 
>a request for a new tribunal hearing (from the Sec of States 
>representative to the Commisioner).
>
>This letter is accompanied by form OSSC3A.
>
>This form asks me to say whether I have any objections to the 
>tribunal's decision being set aside without the Commissioner 
>considering the parties' arguments or without the Commisioner giving 
>reasons.
>
>It also asks if I want an oral hearing before the Commissioner (and 
>reasons why if I say yes).
>
>The thing is - I asked the Tribunal people recently if I would have a 
>chance to submit extra and new evidence that wasn't in my original 
>claim. For example, I now have a printout of my entire medical history. 
>And I want to submit other documentary evidence as well.
>
>I'm not sure if I need to ask the Commissioner to look at this evidence 
>or let it go straight to the new tribunal. I'm not sure how to answer 
>the two qustions on the form. I don't particularly want to appear in 
>person either before the Commissioner or a new tribunal. Is it possible 
>to ask for a "paper hearing" with the Commissioner or ask a 
>representative to attend a hearing? And since it's now a year gone, 
>which way will I best expedite my appeal?

Your appeal to the Commissioner was "on a point of law" - effectively, 
solely about the technicalities - whether the appeal tribunal did their 
job properly.  Usually either you, or the Secretary of State, or both, 
suggest that the tribunal's reasons for their decision are inadequate. 
This is much the most common "point of law" on which appeal tribunals 
are overturned. However, all this merely gets you another go at a 
tribunal; the Commissioner's decision usually has no bearing on the 
rights and wrongs of your particular case.

So you should say you have no objections to the Commissioner simply 
setting aside the tribunal decision, without considering the detailed 
arguments and without giving reasons.  And you should also say that you 
(most certainly) do not want an oral hearing before the Commissioner. 
There is nothing further you can gain at the level of the Commissioner. 
The case will be sent back to a differently constituted tribunal to be 
re-heard.

You can of course submit further evidence to that tribunal.  Remember 
though that the tribunal will be reconsidering the original decision 
maker decision that was taken some time ago, so medical evidence about 
events after that date (such as a deterioration in your health) will be 
irrelevant. You can appear at the re-heard tribunal in person, or not, 
and you can have a representative, or not.  Statistically you have a 
much higher chance of success if you have a competent representative.

I see you have had a characteristically confused and ill-thought out 
response from  "Niteawk" - you can safely ignore anything he posts.

Clive

-- 
Clive Martin
my email address is cliveatcmartindotdemondotcodotuk

"Clive Martin"  wrote in message 
news:bzJ4CXBGn$bGFwq3@cmartin.demon.co.uk...
> In message <466f60fc$0$97266$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, me 
>  writes
>>I applied for DLA 12 months ago. Was refused. Had a tribunal hearing just 
>>before Christmas. Their decision went against me. Appealed to Social 
>>Security Commisioner's office. They granted me leave to appeal. They said 
>>the first tribunal's decision was wrong in law. I now have a letter - 
>>Secretary of State's Submission to the Commissioner. There is a submission 
>>asking for further findings of facts re my needs. There is a request for a 
>>new tribunal hearing (from the Sec of States representative to the 
>>Commisioner).
>>
>>This letter is accompanied by form OSSC3A.
>>
>>This form asks me to say whether I have any objections to the tribunal's 
>>decision being set aside without the Commissioner considering the parties' 
>>arguments or without the Commisioner giving reasons.
>>
>>It also asks if I want an oral hearing before the Commissioner (and 
>>reasons why if I say yes).
>>
>>The thing is - I asked the Tribunal people recently if I would have a 
>>chance to submit extra and new evidence that wasn't in my original claim. 
>>For example, I now have a printout of my entire medical history. And I 
>>want to submit other documentary evidence as well.
>>
>>I'm not sure if I need to ask the Commissioner to look at this evidence or 
>>let it go straight to the new tribunal. I'm not sure how to answer the two 
>>qustions on the form. I don't particularly want to appear in person either 
>>before the Commissioner or a new tribunal. Is it possible to ask for a 
>>"paper hearing" with the Commissioner or ask a representative to attend a 
>>hearing? And since it's now a year gone, which way will I best expedite my 
>>appeal?
>
> Your appeal to the Commissioner was "on a point of law" - effectively, 
> solely about the technicalities - whether the appeal tribunal did their 
> job properly.  Usually either you, or the Secretary of State, or both, 
> suggest that the tribunal's reasons for their decision are inadequate. 
> This is much the most common "point of law" on which appeal tribunals are 
> overturned. However, all this merely gets you another go at a tribunal; 
> the Commissioner's decision usually has no bearing on the rights and 
> wrongs of your particular case.
>
> So you should say you have no objections to the Commissioner simply 
> setting aside the tribunal decision, without considering the detailed 
> arguments and without giving reasons.  And you should also say that you 
> (most certainly) do not want an oral hearing before the Commissioner. 
> There is nothing further you can gain at the level of the Commissioner. 
> The case will be sent back to a differently constituted tribunal to be 
> re-heard.
>
> You can of course submit further evidence to that tribunal.  Remember 
> though that the tribunal will be reconsidering the original decision maker 
> decision that was taken some time ago, so medical evidence about events 
> after that date (such as a deterioration in your health) will be 
> irrelevant. You can appear at the re-heard tribunal in person, or not, and 
> you can have a representative, or not.  Statistically you have a much 
> higher chance of success if you have a competent representative.
>
> I see you have had a characteristically confused and ill-thought out 
> response from  "Niteawk" - you can safely ignore anything he posts.
>

You dont know what you are on about as usual Clive, I can get a point across 
in one line whereas you have taken 3 bloody paragraphs to say what is in 
essence the same thing.

On Jun 13, 3:26 pm, "Niteawk"  wrote:

> You dont know what you are on about as usual Clive, I can get a point across
> in one line whereas you have taken 3 bloody paragraphs to say what is in
> essence the same thing.- Hide quoted text -
>


Actually clive is exactly right, I recently dealt with another case
(not DLA) in which the decision opf the commisioner was similar.  The
commisioner isn't giving a decision on the DLA at all merely the way
the tribunal conducted it's business.  If you opt for an oral hearing
the comissioner will still only consider that aspect and not your ent
to DLA.  Setting it aside without a hearing and going for another
appeal trib hearing is the quickest way forward, though there is no
quick way, it's all relative.

Having the decsion set aside does not mean you will win a subsequent
appeal tribunal, though you may do especially if you have additional
relevant medical evidence (see clives comments).

Clive is long winded but thorough and with social security law the
devil is in the details.

Mike

"me"  wrote in message 
news:466f60fc$0$97266$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>I applied for DLA 12 months ago. Was refused. Had a tribunal hearing just 
>before Christmas. Their decision went against me. Appealed to Social 
>Security Commisioner's office. They granted me leave to appeal. They said 
>the first tribunal's decision was wrong in law. I now have a letter - 
>Secretary of State's Submission to the Commissioner. There is a submission 
>asking for further findings of facts re my needs. There is a request for a 
>new tribunal hearing (from the Sec of States representative to the 
>Commisioner).
>
> This letter is accompanied by form OSSC3A.
>
> This form asks me to say whether I have any objections to the tribunal's 
> decision being set aside without the Commissioner considering the parties' 
> arguments or without the Commisioner giving reasons.

Obviously you are not going to object, you want the decision set aside 
because it was wrong.


>
> It also asks if I want an oral hearing before the Commissioner (and 
> reasons why if I say yes).

Its better to have an oral hearing just in case you need to clarify some 
points with them and vice versa.


>
> The thing is - I asked the Tribunal people recently if I would have a 
> chance to submit extra and new evidence that wasn't in my original claim. 
> For example, I now have a printout of my entire medical history. And I 
> want to submit other documentary evidence as well.

You can do that when you are given a date for the new hearing, send them 
copies by post to arrive no later than 7 days before the hearing date.

>
> I'm not sure if I need to ask the Commissioner to look at this evidence or 
> let it go straight to the new tribunal. I'm not sure how to answer the two 
> qustions on the form. I don't particularly want to appear in person either 
> before the Commissioner or a new tribunal. Is it possible to ask for a 
> "paper hearing" with the Commissioner or ask a representative to attend a 
> hearing? And since it's now a year gone, which way will I best expedite my 
> appeal?
>

If you dont want to go then you can have a paper hearing, if you want to 
send a rep then you opt for an oral hearing which is best IMO.

In message <466f60fc$0$97266$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, 
me  writes
>I applied for DLA 12 months ago. Was refused. Had a tribunal hearing 
>just before Christmas. Their decision went against me. Appealed to 
>Social Security Commisioner's office. They granted me leave to appeal. 
>They said the first tribunal's decision was wrong in law. I now have a 
>letter - Secretary of State's Submission to the Commissioner. There is 
>a submission asking for further findings of facts re my needs. There is 
>a request for a new tribunal hearing (from the Sec of States 
>representative to the Commisioner).
>
>This letter is accompanied by form OSSC3A.
>
>This form asks me to say whether I have any objections to the 
>tribunal's decision being set aside without the Commissioner 
>considering the parties' arguments or without the Commisioner giving 
>reasons.
>
>It also asks if I want an oral hearing before the Commissioner (and 
>reasons why if I say yes).
>
>The thing is - I asked the Tribunal people recently if I would have a 
>chance to submit extra and new evidence that wasn't in my original 
>claim. For example, I now have a printout of my entire medical history. 
>And I want to submit other documentary evidence as well.
>
>I'm not sure if I need to ask the Commissioner to look at this evidence 
>or let it go straight to the new tribunal. I'm not sure how to answer 
>the two qustions on the form. I don't particularly want to appear in 
>person either before the Commissioner or a new tribunal. Is it possible 
>to ask for a "paper hearing" with the Commissioner or ask a 
>representative to attend a hearing? And since it's now a year gone, 
>which way will I best expedite my appeal?

Your appeal to the Commissioner was "on a point of law" - effectively, 
solely about the technicalities - whether the appeal tribunal did their 
job properly.  Usually either you, or the Secretary of State, or both, 
suggest that the tribunal's reasons for their decision are inadequate. 
This is much the most common "point of law" on which appeal tribunals 
are overturned. However, all this merely gets you another go at a 
tribunal; the Commissioner's decision usually has no bearing on the 
rights and wrongs of your particular case.

So you should say you have no objections to the Commissioner simply 
setting aside the tribunal decision, without considering the detailed 
arguments and without giving reasons.  And you should also say that you 
(most certainly) do not want an oral hearing before the Commissioner. 
There is nothing further you can gain at the level of the Commissioner. 
The case will be sent back to a differently constituted tribunal to be 
re-heard.

You can of course submit further evidence to that tribunal.  Remember 
though that the tribunal will be reconsidering the original decision 
maker decision that was taken some time ago, so medical evidence about 
events after that date (such as a deterioration in your health) will be 
irrelevant. You can appear at the re-heard tribunal in person, or not, 
and you can have a representative, or not.  Statistically you have a 
much higher chance of success if you have a competent representative.

I see you have had a characteristically confused and ill-thought out 
response from  "Niteawk" - you can safely ignore anything he posts.

Clive

-- 
Clive Martin
my email address is cliveatcmartindotdemondotcodotuk

"Clive Martin"  wrote in message 
news:bzJ4CXBGn$bGFwq3@cmartin.demon.co.uk...
> In message <466f60fc$0$97266$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, me 
>  writes
>>I applied for DLA 12 months ago. Was refused. Had a tribunal hearing just 
>>before Christmas. Their decision went against me. Appealed to Social 
>>Security Commisioner's office. They granted me leave to appeal. They said 
>>the first tribunal's decision was wrong in law. I now have a letter - 
>>Secretary of State's Submission to the Commissioner. There is a submission 
>>asking for further findings of facts re my needs. There is a request for a 
>>new tribunal hearing (from the Sec of States representative to the 
>>Commisioner).
>>
>>This letter is accompanied by form OSSC3A.
>>
>>This form asks me to say whether I have any objections to the tribunal's 
>>decision being set aside without the Commissioner considering the parties' 
>>arguments or without the Commisioner giving reasons.
>>
>>It also asks if I want an oral hearing before the Commissioner (and 
>>reasons why if I say yes).
>>
>>The thing is - I asked the Tribunal people recently if I would have a 
>>chance to submit extra and new evidence that wasn't in my original claim. 
>>For example, I now have a printout of my entire medical history. And I 
>>want to submit other documentary evidence as well.
>>
>>I'm not sure if I need to ask the Commissioner to look at this evidence or 
>>let it go straight to the new tribunal. I'm not sure how to answer the two 
>>qustions on the form. I don't particularly want to appear in person either 
>>before the Commissioner or a new tribunal. Is it possible to ask for a 
>>"paper hearing" with the Commissioner or ask a representative to attend a 
>>hearing? And since it's now a year gone, which way will I best expedite my 
>>appeal?
>
> Your appeal to the Commissioner was "on a point of law" - effectively, 
> solely about the technicalities - whether the appeal tribunal did their 
> job properly.  Usually either you, or the Secretary of State, or both, 
> suggest that the tribunal's reasons for their decision are inadequate. 
> This is much the most common "point of law" on which appeal tribunals are 
> overturned. However, all this merely gets you another go at a tribunal; 
> the Commissioner's decision usually has no bearing on the rights and 
> wrongs of your particular case.
>
> So you should say you have no objections to the Commissioner simply 
> setting aside the tribunal decision, without considering the detailed 
> arguments and without giving reasons.  And you should also say that you 
> (most certainly) do not want an oral hearing before the Commissioner. 
> There is nothing further you can gain at the level of the Commissioner. 
> The case will be sent back to a differently constituted tribunal to be 
> re-heard.
>
> You can of course submit further evidence to that tribunal.  Remember 
> though that the tribunal will be reconsidering the original decision maker 
> decision that was taken some time ago, so medical evidence about events 
> after that date (such as a deterioration in your health) will be 
> irrelevant. You can appear at the re-heard tribunal in person, or not, and 
> you can have a representative, or not.  Statistically you have a much 
> higher chance of success if you have a competent representative.
>
> I see you have had a characteristically confused and ill-thought out 
> response from  "Niteawk" - you can safely ignore anything he posts.
>

You dont know what you are on about as usual Clive, I can get a point across 
in one line whereas you have taken 3 bloody paragraphs to say what is in 
essence the same thing.

On Jun 13, 3:26 pm, "Niteawk"  wrote:

> You dont know what you are on about as usual Clive, I can get a point across
> in one line whereas you have taken 3 bloody paragraphs to say what is in
> essence the same thing.- Hide quoted text -
>


Actually clive is exactly right, I recently dealt with another case
(not DLA) in which the decision opf the commisioner was similar.  The
commisioner isn't giving a decision on the DLA at all merely the way
the tribunal conducted it's business.  If you opt for an oral hearing
the comissioner will still only consider that aspect and not your ent
to DLA.  Setting it aside without a hearing and going for another
appeal trib hearing is the quickest way forward, though there is no
quick way, it's all relative.

Having the decsion set aside does not mean you will win a subsequent
appeal tribunal, though you may do especially if you have additional
relevant medical evidence (see clives comments).

Clive is long winded but thorough and with social security law the
devil is in the details.

Mike

"me"  wrote in message 
news:466f60fc$0$97266$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>I applied for DLA 12 months ago. Was refused. Had a tribunal hearing just 
>before Christmas. Their decision went against me. Appealed to Social 
>Security Commisioner's office. They granted me leave to appeal. They said 
>the first tribunal's decision was wrong in law. I now have a letter - 
>Secretary of State's Submission to the Commissioner. There is a submission 
>asking for further findings of facts re my needs. There is a request for a 
>new tribunal hearing (from the Sec of States representative to the 
>Commisioner).
>
> This letter is accompanied by form OSSC3A.
>
> This form asks me to say whether I have any objections to the tribunal's 
> decision being set aside without the Commissioner considering the parties' 
> arguments or without the Commisioner giving reasons.

Obviously you are not going to object, you want the decision set aside 
because it was wrong.


>
> It also asks if I want an oral hearing before the Commissioner (and 
> reasons why if I say yes).

Its better to have an oral hearing just in case you need to clarify some 
points with them and vice versa.


>
> The thing is - I asked the Tribunal people recently if I would have a 
> chance to submit extra and new evidence that wasn't in my original claim. 
> For example, I now have a printout of my entire medical history. And I 
> want to submit other documentary evidence as well.

You can do that when you are given a date for the new hearing, send them 
copies by post to arrive no later than 7 days before the hearing date.

>
> I'm not sure if I need to ask the Commissioner to look at this evidence or 
> let it go straight to the new tribunal. I'm not sure how to answer the two 
> qustions on the form. I don't particularly want to appear in person either 
> before the Commissioner or a new tribunal. Is it possible to ask for a 
> "paper hearing" with the Commissioner or ask a representative to attend a 
> hearing? And since it's now a year gone, which way will I best expedite my 
> appeal?
>

If you dont want to go then you can have a paper hearing, if you want to 
send a rep then you opt for an oral hearing which is best IMO.

In message <466f60fc$0$97266$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, 
me  writes
>I applied for DLA 12 months ago. Was refused. Had a tribunal hearing 
>just before Christmas. Their decision went against me. Appealed to 
>Social Security Commisioner's office. They granted me leave to appeal. 
>They said the first tribunal's decision was wrong in law. I now have a 
>letter - Secretary of State's Submission to the Commissioner. There is 
>a submission asking for further findings of facts re my needs. There is 
>a request for a new tribunal hearing (from the Sec of States 
>representative to the Commisioner).
>
>This letter is accompanied by form OSSC3A.
>
>This form asks me to say whether I have any objections to the 
>tribunal's decision being set aside without the Commissioner 
>considering the parties' arguments or without the Commisioner giving 
>reasons.
>
>It also asks if I want an oral hearing before the Commissioner (and 
>reasons why if I say yes).
>
>The thing is - I asked the Tribunal people recently if I would have a 
>chance to submit extra and new evidence that wasn't in my original 
>claim. For example, I now have a printout of my entire medical history. 
>And I want to submit other documentary evidence as well.
>
>I'm not sure if I need to ask the Commissioner to look at this evidence 
>or let it go straight to the new tribunal. I'm not sure how to answer 
>the two qustions on the form. I don't particularly want to appear in 
>person either before the Commissioner or a new tribunal. Is it possible 
>to ask for a "paper hearing" with the Commissioner or ask a 
>representative to attend a hearing? And since it's now a year gone, 
>which way will I best expedite my appeal?

Your appeal to the Commissioner was "on a point of law" - effectively, 
solely about the technicalities - whether the appeal tribunal did their 
job properly.  Usually either you, or the Secretary of State, or both, 
suggest that the tribunal's reasons for their decision are inadequate. 
This is much the most common "point of law" on which appeal tribunals 
are overturned. However, all this merely gets you another go at a 
tribunal; the Commissioner's decision usually has no bearing on the 
rights and wrongs of your particular case.

So you should say you have no objections to the Commissioner simply 
setting aside the tribunal decision, without considering the detailed 
arguments and without giving reasons.  And you should also say that you 
(most certainly) do not want an oral hearing before the Commissioner. 
There is nothing further you can gain at the level of the Commissioner. 
The case will be sent back to a differently constituted tribunal to be 
re-heard.

You can of course submit further evidence to that tribunal.  Remember 
though that the tribunal will be reconsidering the original decision 
maker decision that was taken some time ago, so medical evidence about 
events after that date (such as a deterioration in your health) will be 
irrelevant. You can appear at the re-heard tribunal in person, or not, 
and you can have a representative, or not.  Statistically you have a 
much higher chance of success if you have a competent representative.

I see you have had a characteristically confused and ill-thought out 
response from  "Niteawk" - you can safely ignore anything he posts.

Clive

-- 
Clive Martin
my email address is cliveatcmartindotdemondotcodotuk

"Clive Martin"  wrote in message 
news:bzJ4CXBGn$bGFwq3@cmartin.demon.co.uk...
> In message <466f60fc$0$97266$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>, me 
>  writes
>>I applied for DLA 12 months ago. Was refused. Had a tribunal hearing just 
>>before Christmas. Their decision went against me. Appealed to Social 
>>Security Commisioner's office. They granted me leave to appeal. They said 
>>the first tribunal's decision was wrong in law. I now have a letter - 
>>Secretary of State's Submission to the Commissioner. There is a submission 
>>asking for further findings of facts re my needs. There is a request for a 
>>new tribunal hearing (from the Sec of States representative to the 
>>Commisioner).
>>
>>This letter is accompanied by form OSSC3A.
>>
>>This form asks me to say whether I have any objections to the tribunal's 
>>decision being set aside without the Commissioner considering the parties' 
>>arguments or without the Commisioner giving reasons.
>>
>>It also asks if I want an oral hearing before the Commissioner (and 
>>reasons why if I say yes).
>>
>>The thing is - I asked the Tribunal people recently if I would have a 
>>chance to submit extra and new evidence that wasn't in my original claim. 
>>For example, I now have a printout of my entire me