Government faces legal action after claimant is refused entry to PIP tribunal because of his assistance dog

A disabled man plans to take legal action against the Ministry of Justice after his benefit tribunal hearing had to be postponed when a judge banned him from bringing in his assistance dog.

Thomas Thorp, from Coventry, was attempting to appeal a decision of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to grant him only the standard rate of mobility on his personal independence payment (PIP) claim.

He had been waiting for the appeal since April last year.

Thorp brought his assistance dog Meg with him to the tribunal hearing in Coventry, and he was also supported by a welfare rights expert from Central England Law Centre.

But as they were waiting for the hearing, the adviser was summoned into the room where it was due to take place.

The judge chairing the panel told the adviser that they needed written proof that Meg (pictured) – a labrador saluki cross – was a registered assistance dog, either through evidence of membership of an online register or a written certificate.

Thorp told his adviser that there was no official register of assistance dogs, and no such certification process.

He believes the judge’s actions were a breach of the Equality Act, with the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) making it clear in its guidance that “there is no legal requirement for an assistance dog to be trained”.

EHRC also states that not all users of assistance dogs carry an ID book giving information about their dog and how it was trained and that “this is not a legal requirement and assistance dog users should not be refused a service simply because they do not have an ID book”.

Despite this clear guidance, Meg was refused entrance to the tribunal.

She has been trained by a qualified assistance dog trainer and wears a harness that states that she is an assistance dog.

For nearly two years, she has supported Thorp with his autism, ADHD and anxiety.

He said: “Meg is the reason I can attend appointments at all.

“She’s how I manage unfamiliar environments, how I cope with stress that would otherwise be unmanageable.

“The DWP recognised that – they awarded me 10 mobility points specifically because I need an assistance dog to follow the route of an unfamiliar journey.

“The tribunal was reviewing that decision.

“The same panel demanding ‘proof’ she was an assistance dog were sitting on a file where DWP had already accepted she was one.”

The judge decided that the appeal should be postponed and take place virtually on a future date, but Thorp wants a face-to-face hearing.

He said he was appalled by the treatment he received and has already lodged a complaint about the judge’s actions, while he also plans to take legal action over what he believes is a breach of the Equality Act.

He said: “I never expected in my life to be refused access to my own tribunal.

“It’s kicking me when I’m down.”

HM Courts and Tribunals Service referred DNS to the Judicial Office for a comment.

A spokesperson for the Judicial Office said: “The judiciary cannot comment on matters relating to individual cases.”