Again, some propaganda from Chris Grayling, who we already know cannot be trusted.
However he tries to explain the motivation behind this clause and the limited use he has in mind, it gives DWP the authority to determine which appeals can be heard by the Tribunals Service, which is an infringement of the principles on which our legal system is based and should be resisted by all means possible. Yes, some wholly spurious appeals reach the TS that waste time & money, but this is the small price we pay for democracy and basic human rights and something we should not give up.
In addition, some of what he says is not true:
1. The current process already requires DWP reconsideration of a decision on appeal before it passes on to the TS. Although sensible to filter out any obvious gaffs, the reality is that the second DM invariably comes up with the same decision as the first DM – what else would you expect?
2. It makes sense to ask straight away for any more evidence if there is any, but I doubt if it will get a fair hearing within DWP and the original decision without it will simply be upheld.
3. It would help to be more informative about what “additional evidence” could comprise and list it on the front page of the ESA50. Do not regard a fit-note from your GP as in itself an indication of his opinion. Better to have a letter from him/her explaining more fully why you are not fit for work if that is the case.
4. Yes, sometimes the TS finds itself with more evidence than the DM had, but a LOT of the time this is not so – it is simply that whilst the DM had it, they decided not to use it. I know this happens, because it happened to me and the DM admitted it. This is not just hearsay – reports produced by the TS prove it is the case.