Tribunal Bundle
Extended appeal inc Social Care.
During VCMH the Judge advised the LA to concede Section I as unreasonable (no evidence to support its position). LA agreed which left some minor dispute of OT related needs & provision plus all of D & H.
Judge asked us to agree to the outstanding to be heard on the papers which we did. This was nearly 2 months ago and our actual hearing should have been 6 weeks ago.
The paper hearing date was moved so still hasn’t been heard yet.
Supplementary bundle has evidence which a) was served to us but not submitted to the tribunal b) totally new evidence that we haven’t seen c) omitted evidence submitted by us.
The majority of the errors don’t make a difference in the disputed areas but the new evidence does.
I have asked the LA Solicitor twice in the last four weeks
to correct the bundle without a reply (usually communicates). I
I followed the instructions of the clerks and emailed
in a direction was issued which set out the new hearing date on/from which stated issues with the bundle to be resolved between parties.
This is most probably irrelevant but adding to the injustice but there is a stage 2 investigation report about what I believe is unlawful thresholds for social care provisions which is being withheld yet they’ve submitted evidence in way. As it’s a paper hearing there won’t be an opportunity
to challenge this evidence.
Is there anything else I can do? If there’s isn’t anything I can do regarding the tribunal, is there a route of redress regarding the solicitors lack of action/response?
A: SenseCheck
- 1 Yes
- 0 No
- 0 Other
- 27 Dec 2025
-
Yes
|
Simple
Dear MH,
To be clear at the outset: I am not providing legal advice. The points below are practical, procedural options you may wish to consider in the SEND Tribunal (extended appeal) context, given the supplementary bundle defects and the delayed paper determination. Apologies if any of this reads a little compressed or unclear, but the thrust is simply this: take prompt, documented steps with the LA, and if the issues are not remedied swiftly, make an appropriate request to invoke the Tribunal’s case-management powers without delay.
1) Put the defects on record immediately (LA solicitor + Tribunal)
Email the LA solicitor and copy the Tribunal.
Attach a short schedule of defects (one line per item) stating:
- what the document is;
- whether it was served/not served;
- whether it is filed/not filed;
- what is missing/incorrect (including index/pagination issues); and
- why it matters (briefly) to the remaining live issues (OT / Sections D and H).
Request, by a short deadline:
- a corrected, consolidated supplementary bundle (clean index + pagination);
- written confirmation of service for any document the LA intends to rely on (including the service date/method); and
- re-insertion and re-filing of any evidence you provided that has been omitted.
Add (calmly) that if these matters are not fully resolved by the deadline you set in your email, you will seek the Tribunal’s case-management assistance and submit a request for further directions (RFC).
2) If the LA is not fully responsive: directions under the HESC Rules (case management)
If the LA does not engage promptly or does not fully remedy the issues, consider an RFC under the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (HESC) Rules 2008 seeking:- an order requiring the LA to file and serve a corrected bundle by a specified date; and
- an order that any document not served on you by a specified deadline may not be relied upon; and/or
- an “unless” style order: if the LA does not correct the bundle by the deadline, the unserved/new documents are excluded.
Flag urgency: the paper determination has already been delayed, and the “new/unseen” evidence is material to the remaining disputed issues.
3) Exclusion of evidence or an alternative procedure (can be sought within the same RFC)
If the LA persists in relying on unserved/new evidence, you may wish to seek, within the same RFC, a direction that:- the unserved/new material is excluded as procedurally unfair; or
- alternatively, the paper determination is adjourned and the matter listed for a short oral hearing / further VCMH, on the basis that paper determination would prejudice your ability to deal properly with late/unserved evidence (particularly on Sections D and H).
4) Stage 2 report / missing report point (can also be included within the RFC, if relevant)
If the LA is relying on (or making assertions derived from) a report that has not been disclosed, you may wish to seek (within the same RFC):- a specific direction requiring disclosure by a stated date; and
- if disclosure is refused or not provided, an order preventing reliance on any evidence dependent on that report and/or a direction that the Tribunal takes the non-disclosure into account when assessing weight.
I have deliberately not set out wider “outside the Tribunal” options here, as the appropriate route can be fact-sensitive and I do not want to stray into anything that could be misconstrued as legal advice. If needed, those wider options can be considered separately with appropriate advice.
Kind regards, and remember sometimes sunlight is the best disinfectant,
Sean
27 Dec 2025
|
Comment