LA accusing me of collusion

A Local Authority, in its tribunal submission, has basically accused me of colluding with my client to try to claim HB/CTR which he is not entitled to (they are not accusing me directly of fraud but making a heavy insinuation that I have acted inappropriately).

Obviously I can take it but I’m not best chuffed. It’s as if it doesn’t understand the role of a rep in advocating for a client.

I’m sure that this sort of thing is not too uncommon and wondered how others have dealt with similar situations? Would you ignore it, address it robustly in your submission, complain to the LA, bring it up with the author directly, or something else?

I once had simillar in a DLA appeal sub. Client’s award had been withdrawn following an ‘informal’ interview at his local JC which had been instigated due to an unfounded allegation that the client was working. DCS terminated award back to the date of the previous renewal and raised recoverable overpayment on basis client had misrepresented his circs on the renewal claim/subsequent revision request (which I had assisted him with some years earlier). They hinted pretty heavily that I had been complicit in the alleged misrepresentation.

I did indeed address it vigorously in the sub. The appeal succeeded (client’s previous award was reinstated) so it all ended well.

It sounds quite important that the tribunal Judge doesn’t doubt your trustworthiness or professionalism so much may depend on how you conduct yourself at the hearing, assuming you intend to go.

I would certainly address the issue in the submission. It doesn’t necessarily form the substance of the appeal, but unless there is strong evidence demonstrating that you have been telling your client what to say and dodge the rules, I think such an accusation - or even insinuation - is highly inappropriate.

The facts are what matter and if the Judge sees you as fair and reasonably impartial, I suspect s/he will not pay a great deal of attention to what the LA is saying.

I’d recommend against getting too indignant as this may make a mountain out of a mole hill, but it sounds sufficiently important to respond to in some way.

Thanks.

The submission does not even include the correspondence I had with the LA that gave rise to the insinuation. It is laughable really and riddled with statements to the effect that it does not believe that people can live in a house that does not contain domestic appliances! Yet its own local welfare scheme rules mean that people in my client’s situation would not qualify for assistance in his circumstances.

I sometimes wonder if there is some sort of ‘hilarious’ competition going on amongst appeals officers to come up with the most stupid reasons for disallowing claims.

From the other side of the fence…..

If the complaint is serious, then I would treat it as a complaint, and hand it over to someonelse (hopefully more senior) to investigate it.

That way, you show both you and your organisation, takes complaints seriously.

Its a hassle I know….....but it will clear the air.

Most likely the LA when challenged to formally complain, will simply withdraw.

Problem over.

MartinB

My sincere apologies if you consider that my earlier missive was directed at LA workers in general. Re-reading it, I can see that it could easily be taken that way and that was not my intention. Your posts are always interesting and illuminating and there are many other fine folk on Rightsnet from LAs who add valuable insight to these pages. In general, many of the LA workers I come across are friendly and helpful and a pleasure to deal with.

I guess I have just had a bad week that was topped off by this and I wanted a rant. I will try to be more considered next time.

“It’s as if it doesn’t understand the role of a rep in advocating for a client”.

Very true…..unfortunately they often dont.

A very experienced rep once said to me “I love it when the Council officials start moaning about me. Not only does it get most (Judges) backs up, it shows the Council doesn’t have much of a case”.

PS: I have worked in hb / local authorities for a very long time now. Some services are brilliant; some are not very good and I have no problem in saying that or telling them either way.

You should also formally complain to the Council, unfounded allegations or insinuations, are still defamation and need stamping on , also take a copy of the complaint to the hearing, if the Judge raises the issue then you can show that the insinuation was not allowed to go un challenged. If it goes un challenged and the Councils case is successful then they will use it again as tactic in the future. Mud sticks if unchallenged, and believe me my ‘veracity’ has been challenged like this in the past, and the first time I had to look up what veracity meant.

I don’t know if I’d bother to formally complain, depends on the details. But if there is a chance that the insinuation could be accepted by the tribunal at face value, leading to either:
(a) my client’s case being unfairly harmed
(b) a doubt over my (or my organisation’s) integrity for the next time I represent at the same tribunal

.. then I would feel compelled to address it in some way. Probably as briefly as possible, but making it clear I was prepared to back up my position if the tribunal thought it was warranted. To just ignore it seems like a disservice to the client.

Billy - I don’t doubt that you’re as pure as the driven snow in terms of integrity, it’s just difficult to make a precise judgement as to whether a reasonable person would view what the LA have said as something which casts doubt on your integrity without reading exactly what they’ve said and knowing exactly what context it has been said in - and obviously it’s not possible for you to post that on here.

- it’s possible (I put it no stronger than that) that you’ve misread what has been said and are over-reacting.

- it’s also possible (much more likely) that you’re not.

I would show the material to my line manager, if possible or someone else senior that you trust (it’s important to get a fresh perspective) and if there actually is, in so many words, an allegation of collusion, then ask them to raise the matter as a formal complaint to the LA - any decent manager would do this/will back you.

If you’re going to make a career out of welfare rights work, an allegation of dishonesty from the LA/DWP cannot go unanswered.

But there’s no need to get all Violet Elizabeth about it and make a huge deal of it in your submission or at the hearing - something like this will be more than adequate;

“At para…... of its submission, the authority appears to be alledging that the appellant’s representative has acted dishonestly in assisting Mr X to make his claim for benefit. Ceretainly, the phrase/passage/sentence (delete as applicable) ‘QUOTE OFFENDING BITS HERE’ suggests that this is the view of the authority. This is a serious allegation and one which the representative rejects absolutely. The tribunal should know that this allegation is the subject of a formal complaint to the authority.”

You don’t need to say any more than that in your sub - and having done that, I wouldn’t then say anything at all in the hearing unless the judge or the LA raise the matter. Most tribunal judges will be fully aware of the seriousness of such an allegation and will slap down the LA for making it, particularly if you have a reputation for honesty/playing with a straight bat/always acting as an honest assistant to the tribunal.

That kind of reputation is invaluable - it can enable you to give evidence of your own experience to a tribunal (e.g. if you’ve visited your client at home, you might have seen how they struggle with stairs/the toilet/whatever) and have the tribunal accept you as a reliable witness. When you’ve been at it long enough, the very fact that you are advocating for an appellant in a difficult case can count in the client’s interest - they know you’re not going to flannel them or try to pull the wool over their eyes.

Very recently I had a difficult overpayment case in front of one of our most senior district judges and very important to the case were the original statements that my client’s brother had given in an interview with me - but which he later withdrew. He also told me he was going back on his original commitment to attend the hearing to give evidence (it was the brother that was dishonest, not my client). The fact that I knew who the judge would be and I knew what my reputation is, allowed me to inform the tribunal what the brother’s original evidence had been - and to know that the tribunal would believe absolutely that he had, in fact, made those statements to me (subtly, but crucially different from asking the tribunal to believe the statements themselves). And that ended up being very important to winning the appeal (which itself then turned out to be crucial in getting the CPS to drop the joint DWP/LA fraud prosecution).

You can’t do that kind of thing if there’s any kind of question mark over your integrity.

I agree with Showells.

About 5 years ago, I uncovered an email where a DWP appeals officer said some unpleasant things about my integrity.  I sent off a strong formal complaint to DWP Director level and received, within a week, an unreserved apology and confirmation that action had been taken against the officer.

As the case involved a substantial alleged overpayment and there were parallel criminal proceedings, it was especially important that any allegations of impropriety were not allowed to go unchallenged.  It’s not a question of one’s pride or ego; these don’t come into it.  It’s vital that a rep’s integrity is maintained for the sake of the client and the administration of justice.

Sadly, there are some staff within LAs and DWP who are antipathetic towards claimants and who view their advocates as being in cahoots to lie and get one over. It’s similar to the view that some police officers have of criminal defence lawyers.

If unchallenged, such views undermine the rule of law and one of the cornerstones of democracy.