“1. On the face of it, there is so much wrong with these two statements of reasons that it is difficult to know where to start. However, the Appellant’s representative makes a decent start by itemising eight grounds of appeal under a series of bullet points. 2. I should explain that I am not at present persuaded by ground 1, about the record of proceedings, for the reason given by the District Tribunal Judge. Nor do I think there is much in ground 5, about the delay in preparing the statement of reasons, again for the reason given by the District Tribunal Judge (although that delay may in itself go some way to explaining the inadequacy of the statements of reasons). However, there is plenty of mileage in the remaining six grounds, which the District Tribunal Judge did not refer to. 3. For example, ground 4 concerns the questionnaire by Mr Kane. The fact that the tribunal misspelt his name, while unfortunate, is the least of the problems. The tribunal’s assessment (at [7] of the statement of reasons) suggests they either did not read Mr Kane’s statement, or at least read it properly. Mr Kane’s status was perfectly clear, as he set out carefully in the answer to the first question. So it is hardly surprising that the form included no clinical findings. Claimants, of course, have long been invited to provide evidence from those that know about their problems with daily living, beyond simply professionals involved in their care or treatment (see e.g. p.36 of the DLA1 form, at p.42 of file CDLA/3060/2013). There may well have been reasons to discount Mr Kane’s evidence, or to give it less weight – e.g. he might be seen as being partial and lacking independence (although he did not tick all the “yes” answers in the care grid), or he might be seen as having his judgement clouded in some other way. But to dismiss his evidence because the form did not say who he was (it did), or what qualifications he had (it did not, but he was not asked and that was not the point) and for lack of clinical details (when again that was not the purpose of the form and Mr Kane did not purport to have a relevant professional qualification) is, in a word, nonsense. 4. Ground 4, moreover, is not even the strongest ground – for example, grounds 2 (failure to distinguish the two appeals), 3 (failure to find facts or give adequate reasons) and 7 (failure to address challenge to EMP report) are all compelling. 5. Credibility, of course, is a matter for the First-tier Tribunal. However, the bare finding in paragraph [15] of the statement of reasons cannot rescue this tribunal decision, 6. The Appellant may well not be entitled to disability living allowance from either date in issue in this appeal. That is not for me to judge. However, all this statement of reasons tells me is that she is not so entitled; it does not even come close – given the representative’s careful submissions on file before the tribunal hearing – to explaining why she does not qualify for DLA.”