Djanogly just doesn't get it. There's so much he says which is inherently inaccurate. If Tribunals are so 'user friendly', how was it that a client I saw yesterday was specifically referred to us at CAB by the Tribunal for specialist advice? The ESA Tribunal adjourned in January specifically to allow the appellant to seek help from us. They know we'll prepare a detailed submission and argue which activity descriptors should be applied; - it saves them the mammoth task of trawling through the whole range of physical and mental health descriptors. Tribunal's are meant to be inquisitorial, but that doesn't mean clients don't need help in putting their case.

We're not funded to provide representation at the hearing, but we do represent the client on the basis of written submissions. Where submissions aren't enough - we attend pro-bono.

I'd love to see Djanogly wade his way through hundreds of pages in an overpayment case. The results of which can quite often determine whether there is loss of liberty. I only recently had a case where the DWP prosecuted someone on the basis of a £51,000 fraud - the client got 18 months inside. The overpayment was subsequently appealed by us - the result was it was reduced to less that half of the amount, to around £24,000.

Now if that at been known at the time of sentencing - would the judge have determined a term of imprisonment was appropriate?

Djanogly needs to come and see the work we do, I'd happily show him what's general help and what's specialist help - he incenses me!