I would like t complain about the appeals service in Nottingham. Does anyone know the procedure or contact details for the District Chairman.

Thanks very much

Regional Chairman is Robert Martin (there are various district chairmen - it's best to complain via Mr Martin). You complain to him about judicial problems. Complaints about administrative problems (ie with clerks rather than chairs) go to the Customer Services section - Office Manager Mrs Mel Clarke.

A friendly word of caution.....

Having also had dealings with the Nottm office (while working for a LA), a number of issues arose. Some related to admin; others about Tribunal Chairs.

On the admin side, Nottm more or less paid nothing more that lip service to the vast majority of points raised. This was particularly true when a group of LAs raised several issues each had in common. Based on my (actual experience), there are one or two ppl at Nottm (admin side) who clearly think they are a law unto themselves. That was the state of play as at March 2004. I cannot comment on any "progress" or otherwise since then.

As for commenting on Tribunal Chairs, be VERY VERY careful. While working for the LA in question, I wrote a letter to TAS (in my capacity as an employee) which expressed an adverse opinion about a Chair. The response of the Regional Chair was one of extreme indignation and an implied threat of possible legal action on the grounds of defamation. For those who are not familiar with defamation, I discovered that a position as an employee does not necessarily protect you from being individually sued....

Fortunately, I was not sued and neither was the LA. However, the situation served as a salutory warning.... To this day, I still have no idea how it is possible to raise genuine concerns about Tribunal Chairs without running the risk of a similarly strident response from TAS. The untouchables? I don't know and, frankly, I am probably running a risk placing this post in the public domain.

If this post is removed (or edited) by Rightsnet, I wouldn't blame them in the slightest, so read while you can.

Regards

I think criticism of chairs is to be avoided at all costs! Forget being sued, I want to win an appeal again one day.

I think its worth remembering that chairs (and other members of the judiciary) being 'untouchable' is the flip side of judicial independence. If chairs can be ticked off because of complaints from welfare rights advisers they could also be ticked off if they don't play the 'game' from a political point of view.

I personally think, again from some personal experience, that complaining about a chair's behaviour is worse than useless, you have next to nothing to gain apart from at best someone having a quiet word which you will never hear about, and potentialy a lot to lose in terms of resentment towards you (they are human beings after all).

Tribunal users groups can be very useful, although this depends on the attitude of your district chair and of course they are no use for individual incidents. And it is probably just worthwhile making complaints about admin issues if the come up. I also understand that chairs are given copies of commissioners decisions that go against them as a way of providing feedback.

I have to say that I am quite worried about this thread....

The ability to scrutinise and criticise the decisions of the judiciary is a fundamental right of everyone in the UK... The UK is a democracy... the judiciary are not beyond reproach, and in fact, in my humble opinion, are actually crying out for scrutiny and criticism...

Article 6 requirements of a 'fair hearing - held in public' are there for a reason - "as Lord Hewart CJ memorably said in R v Sussex JJ ex p McCarthy <1924> 1 KB 256, <1923> All ER Rep 233, it is important that justice should not only be done, but seen to be done" - (quote 'nicked' from CSHC/729/2003).

If a Chairman of a Tribunal (be they part time, District of Regional), makes a "stupid" decision, or even a that is arguable either way, that decision must be challenged... perhaps in public as well as by way of appeal to Commissioners... all TAS hearings are public hearings... all TAS decisions are public decisions.... debate in any democratic society must be in public....

I have been an LA Presenting Officer for over three years... I have argued with everyone at TAS from the most senior Chairman, to Chairman that have no business deciding HB cases... and have no idea (or clue), about the HB regs and even Chairs who didn't know that HB/CTB have different legislative provisions and are legally as separate as HB and IS...

I understand what has been posted about "smooth sailing" at TAS, but that is not what law is about... either the LA/DWP etc. is right or wrong... Dispute resolution techniques bring little benefit (no pun intended) in Social Security matters... I have been told by Chairman in hearings that I am wrong, that I don't know what I am talking about etc. etc. But equally, I have quite calmly told Chairs they are wrong in no uncertain terms... often telling them at TAS as they are giving their reasons/decision why they are wrong, refusing to accept their decision, and telling them I will take it to Commissioners because I consider they are so wrong...

Obviously criticise of a Chair must attack the decision given, not the person giving the decision... I criticise Chairs all the time, and will continue to do so... they are not as infallible as some of them seem to think they are (if they were, there would be no need for Commissioners would there? I have also said this at hearings too, to bring a Chair back down to size).

Also if what has been said on this thread is correct, some Chairs need to be brought to task for threatening legal action which would have no course of success if the criticism of their judicial findings was not personal... that would be an abuse of the legal process and be susceptible to possible to counter-clam just for the threat....

I've not put a complaint in about legal or technical matters in a hearing but I have put in a complaint about a chair making potentially racist and certainly stereotyping and judgemental remarks in earshot of appellants in the waiting room. TAS seemed to take it very seriously and we got feedback from Judge Harris, I think the Chair got re-training or something. Obviously we had to be extremely careful in how we phrased the complaint to protect both ourselves and to make sure that the exact nature of the complaint was clear so that the Chair was not damaged more than necessary, but the complaint had to be made. I went through my manager with a 'witness statement' from me, but whether that would have protected me from a defamation claim I do not know.

My ongoing anxiety was that I would then have to rep against this Chair and I always have a little speech in mind about perception of bias, etc, to request an adjournment. TAS seem to have always administered me around him since then and I've never met him again, which is a shame as in many ways he is a good, sympathetic chair and my clients might have won a few.

The point is Chairs have to be brought up where needed. It's scary and you must be careful how you do it but your duty is not just to the client on the day but all the clients that you will have in future.

To answer the question directly - this information is available in The Appeals Service President's Protocol 2 at: http://www.appeals-service.gov.uk/559.htm

With regard to my previous thread I was being slightly tongue in cheek saying I would never complain about a chair, although I think situations when I would do so would be limited to clearly defined situations such as racism as described above. I certainly would never complain about anything that could be described as a judicial action as appealing is normally the way to go on that.

I stick by my point that it is rarely in anyone's interest to compalin about chairs though. In 90% of cases I think it ends up being a world of hurt for very little to gain and tends to personalise the issue. The post by ghcharter demonstrates how careful you have to be even over very serious issues that cannot be glossed over.