we've been contacted by the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council (AJTC) who are looking for evidence on the impact on claimants of DWP/HMRC delays in responding to appeals -

'When the draft Tribunal Procedure (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008 were under consultation the AJTC pressed for the introduction of a 42 day time limit for the DWP and HMRC agencies to respond to an appeal, either by revising the appealed decision or by sending the appeal and supporting submission to the Tribunals Service (TS). The DWP and HMRC made representations to the Tribunal Procedure Committee to the effect that such a time limit would be impossible to achieve and urged that the Rules should simply require that their response should be sent to the TS "as soon as reasonably practicable after the decision maker receives the notice of appeal" (Rule 24 refers).

We are keen to demonstrate the impact this has on tribunal users, both by identifying the actual time cases take to get to the Tribunals Service and by highlighting case studies showing how these delays affect people who are denied the benefits to which they are entitled. We wondered if your organisation might be able to help us with the case studies, based on evidence gained from people your offices have helped with their appeals. We would be looking to highlight a range of examples for different benefits showing what the delay was in getting the case to a hearing, and what impact that had on the appellant. Obviously, the greatest impact will be felt by those people who have no other income. However, on the other hand, the denial of a disability benefit can have the effect of curtailing a person's ability to get out and about.'

Delays in "civil" Tribunal hearings can adversely impact on claimants who are also subject to criminal proceedings. As has been mentioned more than once in these forums, it is far from unusual for overpayments alleged to exist by the DWP (and LAs) to be wrong. In some cases, the Tribunal also finds the substantive decision to be wrong in any case. The latter plainly affects the substance of a prosecution and the former plainly affects sentencing.

It is all the more important because Criminal courts don't seem keen to adjourn pending the outcome of Tribunal hearings.

Sample case (kindly forwarded to me by another poster just this week):
R v Jarvis (2008) EWCA Crim 2296

Potentially oversimplified, Jarvis went something like this:

1) prosecuted and convicted.

2) sentenced on the basis of £30,500

3) subsequent Tribunal found ACTUAL o/p £11,476.67


It's not just the sentencing that can be affected; it affects proceeds of crime confiscation too.

It isn't suggested that Jarvis was on the receiving end of delays by TTS. However, the chronology does show consequences that could quite realistically occur where an appeal is delayed and the criminal proceedings merrily continue.

The simple fact is that these delays, as stated, can lead to hardships. We often advise on the use of the social fund, local charities and social services for those who are left without an income.

I have had client's who have lost their home where delays in administering appeals has contributed. In one recent case, by the time we finished dealing with the client, the LA (that doesn't have the resources or staff to deal with complex cases) had had the appeal for well over a year without producing the bundle and the claimant lost her accommodation.

In another case, the client's appeal for tax credit has been with HMRC for over seven months. The client isn't being paid. Interestingly, in the seven years since the introduction of tax credits, I have still NEVER repped a TC appeal, and those I have been involved in have been maladminstered or simply not dealt with. Sometimes, it seems as though TCO rely on and enhance the complexity of the system to avoid dealing with these issues. In a recent case, the TCO actually inserted words into an act of parliament in an attempt to justify an administrative procedure.

Effects of delays are obvious and hardly need evidencing. Especially the obvious short-term effects like being able to heat a home (most of our clients are on pre-payment meters so no income means no heat or hot water), providing adequate food and clothing, keeping a roof, etc. Those cases, such as IS/JSA/HB are the more serious, but cases like DLA are less so. Yes it is the case that denying DLA incorrectly can adversely affect a disabled person's quality of life, but at least they have the means to feed themselves.

RTR/HRT decisions tend to have the biggest impact because they often mean no income or HB at all for the claimant. Three months for the bundle and three months for a hearing really doesn't represent an effective remedy for 'no income' cases.

We attended the National Customer Representative Liaison forum (NCRLF) meeting last week and some of the information given out in relation to the amount of appeals being received, the cost of this extra work and the time it and will continue to take to hold a hearing, does not make happy reading.
We were originally told that £9 million had been set aside for the expected number of ESA appeals, this money has now been used and an extra (undisclosed amount) has now been given to the Tribunal Service by DWP to help them cope with the massive number of appeals they are receiving.

The original forecast for ESA appeals was 272,208k, but receipts are currently 302,854k with a projected expectation that this will reach 334,000k, which is an increase of 23%, over all the usual appeals work received.

Currently only 75% of cases are being heard in the 14 week time limit, with some regions (Birmingham and Newcastle) approaching 18 - 20 weeks, before a first hearing.

They also anticipated that the 2010/2011 intake of appeals could reach 318,000, which will require 74000 hearing sessions to clear and both the Judiciary and composition of appeal tribunal panels are under a lot of pressure.

The question was asked about how much the extra work is costing, but they would only say that DWP were funding the increase in work, but wouldn't say how much additional money would be required, especially when IB migration will start soon and the number of appeals is expected to rise again.

Therefore i would have thought there will be an abundance of case studies.