16 UC Sanctions!

rightsnet wrote:Bit wordy but the enquiry below hopefully will explain all.
My client (who has appeared in these fora before) has 16 sanctions against her in Live service. To cut a (very) long story short, via a complex needs review, the DWP’s own work psychologist recommended that her claimant commitment should be tailored to fit someone with anxiety depression and claustrophobia and that throughout her claim, her commitment had been tailored for a person with no health conditions and as a result “have not fitted the claimant”. As part and parcel of my escalation of this case, I was told on more than one occasion that as a result of this report, the sanctions would be lifted. However, when I asked for back pay due, I was told that they had not been lifted (despite them clearing her rent arrears) and the matter would now have to proceed to a tribunal for determination. (they have lifted the current 3 year sanction so at least she is now getting paid)
I will be arguing that as the claimant commitments have been “deemed” as not fitting the claimant, and therefore not tailored to her needs, then such a claimant commitment is not fit for the purpose and any sanctions based upon it are therefore not reasonable and appropriate.
Does anyone else have any experience of arguing the validity of sanctions on the basis of a wrongly constituted claimant commitment?