Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
DWP hiring 86 new POs
As I think was announced at some point, the advert for new POs has emerged:
https://www.civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk/csr/jobs.cgi?jcode=1513124
Which could well explain why some members of the forum have reported a sudden increase in the DWP requesting SORs (presumably seeking training material?)
Salary scale £23k - £24k, 37 hours a week between 7.45 am and 8:00 pm on any day between Monday to Friday, and 8.45 am to 5:00 pm on Saturday with regular travel throughout the UK and overnight stays.
I see the advert is for 5 posts rather than 86.
Can’t see there being too many takers on here with those conditions.
Looks like there are jobs all over the country, with those 5 being Newcastle
For example here’s Milton Keynes, where it does say ‘‘Up to 86 posts Nationally” ...
https://www.civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk/csr/jobs.cgi?jcode=1513123
the universal credit jobs are worth a look too:
Universal Credit Service Centre - Case Worker
Universal Credit Service Centre Telephony Agent / Account Developer
well at that level of qualification/salary, the standard of PO’s won’t be very high. they’ll be doing what they’re told, presenting to the script, and probably not thinking independently about the issues in the actual case in front of them.
Can’t see there being too many takers on here with those conditions.
I posted more for information than in the expectation that anyone would see this as a good chance to switch sides.
Well…..
Over the years I have met some decent POs. They’re probably in the minority but there have been some decent ones. They’re only presenting the Department’s case and will only have received the case papers a day or two prior to the hearing, so it’s not as if they have any personal interest in the outcome - i.e. it’s not their own decision they’re defending.
I can think of a few cases (right to reside, significant overpayments) where the PO has walked in and said straight out the decision is indefensible and the appeal should be allowed - and while I’d like to think we’d have won anyway based on my representations, they conceded the appeal without any prompting from me or the judge, so I imagine they’d have taken the same attitude with an unrepresented appellant.
All I’m saying is there is capacity for POs - if properly trained and not bound by targets coming from above - to do some good. Unlikely in the present climate though, I admit…..
All I’m saying is there is capacity for POs - if properly trained and not bound by targets coming from above - to do some good. Unlikely in the present climate though, I admit…..
of course ... but a paralegal with no experience/knowledge isn’t going to be .... which is my concern.
True. But I’m not even a paralegal, nor are quite a few others on here…..
It’s the difference between a properly trained PO who is able (and encouraged) to take a proactive role at a hearing and someone who is expected to trundle in, take the party line regardless of the evidence, and trundle out again (which is- I rather fear- what will happen in practice).
I rather think the key thing about these rules was laid out some time ago when these were announced and that is that these roles are not about being a friend to the tribunal. These roles are about defending DWP decisions. That is a significant change. My suspicion is that this will not be welcomed by the overwhelming majority of inquisitorial tribunals but will, in the short term, play very much in our favour. It’s very hard for a medical professional to be nastier than a bad PO on a bad day and most tribunals put adversarial POs in their place very quickly, not that it has stopped some notable POs lacking a remarkable amount of self-awareness as to when they are being reduced to rubble by shot after shot from a judge!
In the longer term one can’t help but suspect that the move to digital alternatives and ADR will indeed breed an adversarial environment and this may then fit right in.
The level of training will of course be relevant but so will the extent to which they receive papers in advance. I’ve had POs come in and concede in the waiting room and I’ve had others who have been told to present one case and who turn up for a day out armed with their crossword. Others who have also turned up for one case but manipulate a day out by asking the clerks for papers for other cases and then go in and present against appellants even when the department have not asked them to do so.
It’s the difference between a properly trained PO who is able (and encouraged) to take a proactive role at a hearing and someone who is expected to trundle in, take the party line regardless of the evidence, and trundle out again (which is- I rather fear- what will happen in practice).
exactly
and what Mike said as well.
The principle established decades ago in case law, is that the PO is not supposed to be adverse to Appellants, (most of whom are not represented), but to act impartially as a friend of the Tribunal, assisting the Appellant as well as the Tribunal.
However, in the current political climate, some POs see to have forgotten this and I have enjoyed Judges pulverise some aggressive or incompetent POs.
The new PO Job Description contains the following, all of which point to the PO not being there in an empowering capacity, but as a forceful advocate for the DWP:
“...only proceed to a full hearing if the decision under challenge remains appropriate and is capable of being defended [defending as a concept does not exist in an inquisitorial process].
“You will assist and support the First Tier Tribunal process in reaching the correct, robust decision by ensuring that each case is represented fully and in line with Social Security Law and instructions [so POs will also make submissions which have basis in law].
“You may be required to question the customers’ case by asking inquisitorial questions as appropriate [interesting use of word “question”, rather than “explore”].
“You will present the Departments [sic] decision in an effective and professional manner…
“Where appropriate you will request a Statement of Reasons on Appeal outcomes where a decision is given against the Department and it is considered there may be an error in law, escalating this to the appropriate level”
This all smacks of the DWP’s ingrained antipathy to the rights of appeal which have caused such huge embarrassment to the DWP and the government over both ESA and PIP. Basically, implement artificial eligibility criteria and an assessment process which is unfit for purpose, put up obstacles to mounting challenges, deny there’s a problem with the assessments, decision making and eligibility criteria, blame claimants for not producing evidence sooner (which would not be needed if the assessments were half good) and now to subtly intimidate Appellants at hearings.
It will be interesting to see what judges make of this new line from the DWP. I doubt they’ll be impressed.
But hey, MOJ want to scrap many face to face hearings anyway -which ironically might mean that quite a few of these new POs would have to claim JSA! Bet DWP don’t mention that to candidates.
[ Edited: 25 Oct 2016 at 11:14 am by neilbateman ]I do enjoy the word “pulverise”. I suspect we will all enjoy it over the next year or two until this all becomes digital by default 😊
Ministers have been quite clear in thinking that judges and tribunals don’t appear for some reason (I believe it’s called “judicial independence) to be on their side against claimants. They believe, and say, that tribunals (and judges in particular) are making decisions that are not in line with the law. What they really mean is that government had an intent; it was forced through Parliament and then implemented by the same poor drafting we have always seen. Ministers never get that last bit. They can’t understand how their intent gets translated into total tortuous nonsense and are genuinely surprised and shocked when tribunals interpret the law as is and not as ministers thought it was. In their world the solution to the problem is not better drafting. It is simply less things to judge and thus less judges.
Commissioner Goodman’s decision CIS/853/95 is a neat overview of what you’ve just written Neil, both from the perspective of the PO acting as an amicus curae to the tribunal as well as to the supposed inquisitorial nature of hearings.