I've received correspondence from a Housing Officer demanding that I "retract" a statement that he had acted unfairly in a rent arrears repayment demand matter. I did not actually refer to any officer by name in my letter, but did levy a charge of 'fettering discretion' and "unswerving failure to compromise" an affordable repayment plan. I'd hate to have seen the reaction had I uttered "Wednesbury".

It transpired that the officer probably did not act unfairly, as my client, though adamant in his instructions, did omit some highly pertinent facts - thus leaving me with a large dollop of egg on my chin.

That however, is not the point. DM's, Housing Officers, Revenue Officers, SFO's and the like should realise this is not personal. It's the citizen's right to challenge either discretionary decisions as unfair or statutory decisions as unlawful.

What next ? Local Authority Revenue Officers asking for full and frank apologies for having the temerity to challenge HB overpayments ? Tribunal Judges ordering reps to say sorry and buy chocolates for distraught DWP Decision Makers following unsuccessful DLA appeals?

Anyways, how does one "retract" that which has already been stated ?

You might be able to prevent similiar issues in future by making it clear in your letters that your acting on your client's instruction - rather than for yourself.

For example - instead of "you lost the letter" consider "my client says you lost thier letter"; or for "your actions are incompetent" consider "my client's description of thier problem suggest your department might have made a mistake", etc.

How do you retract a statement...? 'Sorry' and 'humble pie' are two methods that come to mind.

I suppose you could just apologise and make it clear that you were acting on your client's instruction and give the concession that you might have phrased things differently.

I've made an assumption here regarding your wording of letters. If you think your letters were OK and the official is being oversensitive than I would either not respond or consider a phone call.

The day that DWP, HMRC local authorities, housing associations, etc, stop writing in threatening terms to our clients (threatening to sanction benefits, take away homes,send in bailiffs, recover overpayments,etc) is that day we will no longer need to reply in such terms in order to protect their interests. People in organisations who send out such threats often forget the impact such communications have on clients.

I'm not sure there's anything to apologise for. In my work as an advocate and also from reviewing/auditing advice services, I have found too many people in LAs and housing associations, (less so in DWP - they are usually more grown up about this), who simply don't grasp what advocacy involves and who then take things personally.

Don't know the details of the case in question, but it sounds like the organisation may have breached the Pre-action Protocol on Possession Claims in Rent Arrears by not accepting an affordable offer of repayment. If they are threatening to take possession proceedings, you could make their day by also threatening them with costs for such a breach!

Whilst I don't disagree with what Neil says I would approach it cautiously.

The 'them' and 'us' approach is not helpful and it should be remembered that some officials have as negative a view of us that we do of them. Importantly, that view is not always unjustified and it can lead to difficulties in establishing trust, rapport and positive working relationships with the official agencies. This may well contribute to some officials, as Neil describes, not grasping what advocacy involves.

Where you can establish positive relationships with officials - which would include admitting when you are wrong - then I believe you should. You can still actively challenge any bad decisions and policies, but at least the agency will know they are dealing with a professional person that knows what they're talking about and has the ability to view the system from multiple perspectives. This is also part of being impartial - which for many of us is a fundamental part of our employers policies.

This is approach is often, for the reasons that Neil alludes to, very much easier said than done... It's taken me years and years to get to this way of thinking and I'm still considered by many to be far too outspoken!!!

"Where you can establish positive relationships with officials - which would include admitting when you are wrong - then I believe you should."

I understand what you're saying but I worry about it, for the simple reason that it implies that you may, because you have a good relationship, get a better / different / quicker / easier result than would someone without such a relationship.

I always believed that a rights based approach was fairer than one based on networking and patronage.

I don't understand Gareth. Are you saying it's better to have a system that's bad for all rather than one that's good for some because we take the time and effort to make it good through networking, feedback and constructive criticism (patronage not being a word that I would use)?

Tony

The trouble is that 'patronage' is the word I'd use.

I'm coloured by having worked on a DFID funded project in Hungary trying to set up a new advice service.

There was a huge problem caused by the cultural tendency of advisors to use and protect their individual contacts within other organisations. I remember a conversation with one advisor about how to handle a housing problem. His response was to say, "No problem, I know someone in the mayor's office who can fix it". When I asked what would happen if the client saw a different advisor he just shrugged and said "Who knows".

There was enormous opposition to trying to institute a rights-based system with equal service for all because it removed the advisors power of patronage derived from their place in the complex networking that existed.

Remember, an advantage to one person must create a disadvantage to another where there is competition for service provision.

"Remember, an advantage to one person must create a disadvantage to another where there is competition for service provision."

I don't see that we create either the advantage or the disadvantage. Here, it seems to me that we have a system that should provide equal advantage (i.e. rights) for everyone in a properly administered scheme, but where we build relationships with outside agencies we are not seeking to look for additional advantages but the application of the rules in the way they were designed as a way to combat the disadvantage that is intrinsic in the poorly administered scheme. That is the purpose of liaison meetings and the building of useful working relationships - to get things done the way they are designed to be done.

So rather than creating advantage to the detriment of others, we work with those others so they are on a level playing field.

I'm not sure that makes much sense. An analogy might be an elevator where the top floor represents maximum rights and the bottom floor represents no rights. In Hungary, if I've understood you properly, everyone is on the lower floors but some people are boosted to the higher floors which is unfair; but here, everyone is on the top floor and some people are dropped to the lower floors. So our work does not create disadvantage, it seeks to combat it by helping those that have been dropped.

Isn't it more like a queue where the networking client jumps to the front thereby pushing others further back?

I see your queue as the client being pushed to the back and we help them to thier rightful place (most of the time).

I now understood your position though and I would agree that that is unfair. However, in the context of building relationships with the official bodies I would not suggest that this is done with the intention of gaining unfair advantage for a select few.

Even if it were, that leaves us with an interesting dilemma - to help everyone or no-one.

Other perspectives would be interesting...

I don’t necessarily think that your positions are mutually exclusive. Gareth is absolutely right. The word “rights” in the phrase “welfare rights” is crucial and is there on purpose. As the Social Security system has developed, particularly since the growth of campaigning organizations in the 1960’s such as CPAG, legislative rights have slowly come to replace much that was discretionary. And this was important. Entitlement cannot be allowed to be in the largesse of officials, dependant on whim, grace and favour coloured by prejudice and value judgements. Rights are rights enjoyable by everyone equally and enforceable against the state absolutely.

However, advisers/representatives have a duty to get the best for their individual clients. If that means cultivating professional relationships with those within the system to speed up procedures or to co-operate in an individual case for the benefit of the client then I don’t see anything problematic with that and I do it all the time, as do others. This is a far cry from losing objectivity and compromising one’s willingness to stand firm, and, to insist that the law be rigorously applied in all cases, with justice guiding its hand. It ensures that if another person later comes to stand in my client’s shoes then he reaps the same rewards.

However, there will always be room for some discretion. There has to be as the interests of justice will demand that, in some areas, different cases attract different treatment (discretionary housing payments, for instance). But principles of public law have gradually developed to keep public officials in check to ensure their decisions are objectively based and thus are amenable to judicial review.

The point is that everyone has and knows his rights and can enforce them without fear or favour. This process must be lawful, transparent and not open to manipulation, intimidation, bribery or corruption. We are and must remain professionals at all times. Then are we able to sleep at night.

As somebody who has sat in front of Mr Nevip many times at the Liverpool Tribunal Users' Group, he may be aware that my short-sword fighting is conducted well within the laws of chivalry.

And its good knight from me and its good knight from him!!

Huzzah, I can show off (mutterings of "so what's new" in background).

As someone who used to be responsible for all sword training and safety in the UK's largest re-enactment society (seriously), I should point out that Chivalry had nothing to do with the rules of sword combat and that the short sword is a weapon which arrived long after the demise of chivalric behaviour anyway ...

... However, the idea of trial by combat at tribunals has a certain attraction, particularly if the absence of a PO would give you a chance to take on the chair.

As far as the point under discussion goes, it seems that things would only be fair if everybody got the correct benefit first time immediately. Once things go wrong then the absence of advice or representation for all means that some are disadvantaged and that therefore some are advantaged, but perhaps not unfairly. Does that make sense?

Speaking as one who not so long ago had supplementary submission from an somewhat irate Decision maker whose feathers had been ruffled, because I had had the temerity to disagree with the EMP report, I have every sympathy with the original post. If we find that (for example) we find that the facts of a case bear very little relationship to the case that DWP are trying to present with their "evidence",then we have a duty almost to say so, firmly but politely of course: particularly
some of rhetoric that comes from that direction on occasion. Witness the reasons put forward for replacing CCG's with supplying actual goods requested: "some of our customers don't make good choices when purchasing goods"......

Furthermore, given the level of muppetry that is sometimes now beginning to emerge from the front line, bless their cotten socks, and notwithstanding the ethics, building a relationship with middle or upper management at district levels within PC/JCP/DBU's or whoever is a necessity if only to get the more blatant misinterpretations and misinformation corrected as soon as possible.

There are also a number of Advisers who also co-exist with the above agencies at national level, sitting on various forums - and hopefully influencing to some degree the way in which they do things - or don't, as the case may be.

As gareth so eloquently puts it, if they didn't make such a pig's ear of countless decsions, then we would be redundant and they could save a
kings ransom on not having to fund the Tribunal Service - Have you seen the salary of a Lower level Judge ...........I know it's not a DWP budget that they come out of, but that's beside the point.

(I won't even mention the cost of building aircraft carriers and submarines; suffice to say that there are more noughts than you can shake a stick at on the cheques).

That's better - now then back to the dark room and the little pink pills and it's Friday tomorrow and I'm on holiday after that and I do feel better already .......