Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
Claimants could be charged for appealing benefit decisions
It seems to me the issue is, that this is another cynical plan by the Coalition to prevent people getting access to justice. And it needs to be fiercely opposed.
I have run appeals privately (ie, not as part of my job and in my spare time) for a few people and they are not totally without cost. The claimant has to find the money for their postage, stationery, photocopying and copies of their medical records, for which GPs are allowed to charge up to £50. A claimant who has no representation and no access to legal aid disbursements has to pay all this themselves out of £71.70 per week. I have yet to meet a claimant who wants to appeal just for the hell of it.
But if the Coalition is serious about going down that road, they’ ll have difficulty in arguing that the DWP shouldn’t refund the fee to claimants who win the case. They’ll also have difficulty in justifying not having presenting officers at most appeal hearings, which means the presenting officers will be available for questioning about their decision-making methods. There is scope to challenge the DWP about why their decision making is often so bad, and their administration incompetent, which generates appeals in the first place. In short there are many ways to prove the proposal unworkable and prevent it getting off the ground.
On the last post about incompetant decison making I have a wee success story, i complained to DWP about them completely c—-g up a mandatory recon decision and leaving the claimant with no money after giving her zero points for ESA and telling her to appeal when no MR decision had even been made , a letter arrived today admitting that DWP were wrong in every respect from call centre to Decision Maker to local job centre, and they have now put my client in the support gropup and sent her £50 compensation for distress. had that very ill client had to fins money to challenge the DWP I seriously think she might not be with us in this world today.
In one way it is the same issue - should people pay for the process of getting the right benefits?
That in turn is only the opener to a bigger discussion (and a number of other discussions) on a more philosophical question - is it wrong to pay if that is the only way to get the right benefits?
This all seems a bit bizarre to me.
We are trying to solve a problem…too many appeals…that surely hides a bigger problem…which we are ignoring.
You have to ask why so many appeals?
The facts are most appeals occur because the DWP have misassessed a claim.
This is the real problem, and it wont be solved by charging folks to appeal, because… that will hide the problem, not solve it…....
The way to cut down appeals, is for the DWP to get it right first time…..
This will miraculously solve both problems…...and so reduce costs…
(Of course it wont raise revenue)
Maybe I am missing something?
As I’ve said before the problem I have is not with charging for advice services but of accountability. Of course solicitors and barristers charge but the profession is highly regulated and court procedures are often complex to the outsider. The not for profit sector is also regulated and accountable.
Many organizations include the good, bad and indifferent so there is no monopoly on quality just because you charge or you don’t. Of course we will defend the necessity of our profession. Our jobs depend on it. However, I also believe in the power of Claimant’s self organization such as the Unemployed Claimants Union I first came across in the 1980’s. Yes, our specialist advice is needed but it is not indispensible given the right circumstances.
I recently became aware of a claimants organization operating on social media and running advice sessions in the room (rent free) of a local pub. I believe it is quite popular. In the wake of such far reaching welfare reform I wonder how widespread this is. I’m not against charging for welfare benefit services in principle but if there is a possibility that it contributes to a reduction in people who use professional services then we had better tread carefully. And, for the avoidances of doubt, I am and always will, be against the State charging appellants for bringing appeals.
A couple of inconsistencies there, I feel:
As I’ve said before the problem I have is not with charging for advice services but of accountability. ...The not for profit sector is also regulated and accountable.
.....
I recently became aware of a claimants organization operating on social media and running advice sessions in the room (rent free) of a local pub. I believe it is quite popular.
How accountable are they?
Of course we will defend the necessity of our profession. Our jobs depend on it. ... I’m not against charging for welfare benefit services in principle but if there is a possibility that it contributes to a reduction in people who use professional services then we had better tread carefully.
Protectionism outweighs the needs of the client?
“How accountable are they”?
That’s a fair point. However, there is one crucial difference in that these groups are not given public money or charging people for their services. The problem then is coming up with a practicable mechanism for regulating such activity.
“Protectionism outweighs the needs of the client”?
That’s not the point I was making. I said that we are not indispensible given the right circumstances. Of course, the needs of the client come first but while we welcome changes which improve services no-one wants to see changes which will put him out of a job. In that sense we are all luddites.
The problem then is coming up with a practicable mechanism for regulating such activity.
I think that normal consumer protection laws should cover the quality of service.
If you need help with that process then you should seek advice from a ......
There is strict liability for defective products in s2 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. There is a defence to this however in s4 of the Act of where the product is supplied not in the course of a business and not for profit. The defence is also in the EC Directive from which the Act derives. However, I don’t know if liability lies elsewhere other than in negligence at common law for which negligence has to be proved.
The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 gives the right to have a service carried out with reasonable care and skill.
In my view that act only applies where a contract exists and a contract cannot exist where no money or money’s worth is payable for the provision of goods or services. Hence s15 of the Act which is as follows.
15 Implied term about consideration.
(1)Where, under a contract for the supply of a service, the consideration for the service is not determined by the contract, left to be determined in a manner agreed by the contract or determined by the course of dealing between the parties, there is an implied term that the party contracting with the supplier will pay a reasonable charge.
(2)What is a reasonable charge is a question of fact.
Quite confused, to say the least, as to why a thread about benefit claimants potentially being charged for lodging appeals seems to have turned into a discussion about whether they should also be charged to seek advice to help rectify incorrect decisions.
In my view that act only applies where a contract exists and a contract cannot exist where no money or money’s worth is payable for the provision of goods or services.
But we’re talking about paying for advice! (Sorry if you thought I was referring to your pub group).
Ah. That explains it. I was thinking that.
Having slept on this and thought about it a bit more, I have to say that my personal opinion is that if we proceed down a road where advice on the resolution of social security disputes becomes just another paid-for service, and we accept that the people disputing those decisions should also then be charged for appealing (which is surely a logical consequence of the former), then we’re essentially arguing for the demise of the UK social security system as we know it, and moving towards a US-style system of private social insurance as well. And that isn’t something that I think is a very good idea.
Call me quaint and old-fashioned but I believe that it is incumbent upon the state to ensure the provision of free-at-the-point-of-contact advice on social security matters for the simple reason that this is a dispute between the state and it’s citizens, unlike most other social welfare law. By definition, the people affected at the sharp end are generally pretty impoverished (not always I accept but a significant proportion and, very probably, a significant majority). I simply do not feel comfortable imposing any kind of financial charge of these people for the very simple reasons that this further penalises them for the mistakes and errors of state bureaucracy and also acts as a barrier to people actually seeking advice.
Whilst there is an issue with accountability, quality, and support mechanisms for independent social security advisers, I similarly think that these issues are becoming more prevalent for traditional frontline services, especially as the networks appear to be uncoordinated, self-preserving, and quite remote in many ways. I would much rather see moves to explore more around pro-bono work, around self-help, and around public legal education as means to overcome some of the problems for individuals. Yet if we’re going to use an apparent policy proposal that seeks to deny justice to those who most need it most by charging them for appeals, as an opportunity to promote paid-for advice as “the solution”, I really do begin to despair for the future of “the sector”, however you want to define it.
Responding to questions in House of Lords yesterday, Lord Faulks said that -
‘The Government has no plans to introduce fees to bring an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Social Security and Child Support).’
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/140317w0001.htm#1403178000219