Hi there, to answer your questions:
The first point they say is as the report was done in 1999 then it is not valid at the material time?
This would not really be something a solicitor would comment on but rather a specialist who knows about dyslexia who can confirm that it is indeed a lifelong condition which does not get ‘cured’ over time.
The second point they state is as the report was instigated by my university then it is a report solely a list of recokmmendations in Education and not in the work place?
Whilst this may have been the case, the report does not just have to deal with recommendations in the university or in the workplace – it could provide a diagnosis in the first place and this could be used in an employment setting as well. It does not legally require recommendation in an employment setting for it to be valid for one so if it just provides a diagnosis it can still be relevant in employment.
They finish off by saying it states (the report) that i suffer from mild dyslexia I realise that this is a matter for the tribunal to decide if my condition is greater than "Trivial" but seem to be saying they discredit the report and then the next minute quoting from it?
Quoting the report does not mean they agree with it – so they can refer to specific terms used in it to try and discredit it or to mention it in other arguments so the simple fact that they are quoting from it does not mean they agree with it in any way.
I hope this has answered your query. I would be grateful if you could please take a second to leave a positive rating by selecting 3, 4 or 5 stars - this is an important part of our process and recognises the time I have spent assisting you. If you still need me to clarify anything else, please get back to me on here and I will assist further as best as I can. Thank you
in regard point 3 my concern is should i mention i disagree with their third point or just leave that uncommented. and if i should disagre not sure how to word it?
you can say you disagree in general and in the end if you both disagree with each other, the tribunal makes the decision anyway