Ms Joan Gordon:

The regulations favour a summary decision in that they stipulate that an appeals officer may decide an appeal on a summary basis unless he or she considers an oral hearing to be necessary. I have a preference for summary hearings because they are more efficient, but when a person asks for an oral hearing, he or she will usually get it. Sometimes, for example, people who have received a summary decision will come back and request an oral hearing because they have more evidence. In such cases, the request is inevitably allowed. The only circumstances in which I would not support the granting of an oral hearing is where there is nothing to be gained from having it. The legislation refers to legal provisions, qualifying contributions, means testing and so on. Sometimes there is nothing to be gained from an oral hearing because there is no possibility of further evidence being adduced. On the other hand, in the case of the medical-based schemes, for instance, as we have discussed, an appellant may well have additional evidence or may want to bring evidence verbally to an oral hearing.