Presenting Officers asked to report on averting enhanced PIP awards and ESA SG appeals

John Pring from Disability News Service has made a FoI request and discovered that Presenting Officers are being routinely required to report back on whether their presence at the hearing has meant that “an enhanced PIP award averted” and “was SG award [ESA] averted” - see the attachment for more.

So much for the PO being an amicus curiae eh?

It chimes exactly with the job spec. for the latest lot which referred to “defending” departmental decisions.

I do wonder how someone with near zero knowledge of the decision; an equivalent level of knowledge of the law and actual zero knowledge of case law and tribunal procedure would be able to ascertain their own specific influence on proceedings unless acknowledged in a statement of reasons. More likely statement would be that the PO was a laughing stock.

Code of Appeals Procedure is provided in FOI response from December 2014 (not aware of more recent one) unsurprisingly it omits reference to seeking or averting particular awards - role of POs is set out at Appendix 8.

edit - looks like the staff guide is still available to view on gov.uk but ‘withdrawn’ I am guessing as result of references to pre MR procedures.

The OBR reports that DWP had expected the £22 million allocated for recruitment of more presenting officers for PIP and ESA appeals from 2016 to 2018 would ‘generate savings’ -

‘... £25 million in 2017-18, rising to £35 million a year from 2018-19. In our March 2017 Economic Fiscal Outlook we reported that a delay in recruitment meant the savings were pushed back a year. We have now been told that fewer presenting officers have been attending tribunals than expected, roughly halving the expected savings.’

Economic and fiscal outlook – October 2018 - Annex A para A.27

In my experience, PIP and ESA appeals usually won through presenting new medical evidence to disagree with HCP reports and credible evidence from the claimant themselves - difficult to see how presenting officers could ‘avert’ awards in those circs.

PO’s would be far better employed sitting in on the medical assessments to witness their often appalling quality.  Had one tribunal where client (in her late 50’s) awarded nothing by DM only to get EDL/EGA at tribunal.  Didn’t have the greatest medical evidence.

DWP asked for SOR.  Judge dealt with every descriptor awarded and was quite scathing about the assessor’s complete failure to pick up on the claimant’s screamingly obvious learning disability.  Went to special needs school (or what passed for one when she was a kid), etc, etc!

Or a 16 year old with autism who couldn’t speak to me or even look me in the eye.  Assessed by a paramedic who, from reading the report, clearly knew nothing about autism.  I got a scathing letter from paediatrician and I wrote a damning criticism of the report.  Decision changed prior to appeal.

Just got back today from tribunal where awarded EDL/EGA based largely on mental health.  Had lost DLA (HRM/HRC) and awarded nil points on PIP.  Client under mental health services and had detailed mental health practitioner’s report stating severe depression.

I could go on and on.

In my experience PO’s (at least those recently recruited) simply parrot what is in the DWP submission - they don’t add anything to the hearing!

The money might be better invested in improving the quality of initial decision making -  Ah, but, the objective is to save money? Didn’t the creation of a ‘hostile environment’ lead another Govt. Dept into a spot of bother recently?

To be fair, in the good old bad old days when I was representing, on more than one occasion the PO agreed with our case and instructed the tribunal that DWP had got it wrong. Somehow doubt the current crop are being trained up with that particular approach in mind…..

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK - 31 October 2018 04:52 PM

To be fair, in the good old bad old days when I was representing, on more than one occassion the PO agreed with our case and instructed the tribunal that DWP had got it wrong. Somehow doubt the current crop are being trained up with that particular approach in mindd…..

Wasn’t the remit to “defend” DWP decisions? Thought they were quite upfront about that.  Some discussion on here about the abandonment of the concept of amicus curiae. So, no, absolutely not being trained with that in mind. Now find myself in the perfect storm of barristers with no clue as to social security law being recruited to run tribunals faced with POs with no clue about anything. One finds oneself almost praying for the “offer” and negotiation.

One PO recently told me that they have been told that their role is no longer that of amicus curiae.  The clerks here in Liverpool, amongst themselves, call the new younger intake baby baristas.  And, they are nothing much.  I always tell my clients that there isn’t a PO that I can’t either work with or deal with.  I really have no idea why they would want to do the job.  They might get away with it when there is no experienced rep’ there but when there is, they’ve got no chance of winning an argument.  In social security tribunals they are largely a complete waste of time and are no assistance whatsoever to the tribunal.

I’ve only seen one PO so far. We sat down, PO sat next to client, client looked at me, I swapped places with the client and quietly asked PO if he would mind giving us some space. He moved along to place an empty seat between us and said nothing all the way through.

I do wonder how many PO’s attend and park themselves next to client when I’m not representing!

nevip - 01 November 2018 12:10 AM

One PO recently told me that they have been told that their role is no longer that of amicus curiae.  The clerks here in Liverpool, amongst themselves, call the new younger intake baby baristas.  And, they are nothing much.  I always tell my clients that there isn’t a PO that I can’t either work with or deal with.  I really have no idea why they would want to do the job.  They might get away with it when there is no experienced rep’ there but when there is, they’ve got no chance of winning an argument.  In social security tribunals they are largely a complete waste of time and are no assistance whatsoever to the tribunal.

Are you sure “baby baristas” is referring to the POs? I’ve heard the term used pejoratively about the new intake of judges who have been recruited from other chambers and/or a bar background and appear to have little in the way of social security knowledge or people skills but lots of fantastically ill-informed opinions. Here in the North West we can no longer get a refusal to set aside or grant leave to appeal. Nope, we have to have two sides of opinion as to how wrong we are. Inevitably it’s an opinion UT judges profoundly disagree with.

I don’t recognise any of the prior comments as typical of the PO’s I’ve come across in the last 20yrs.

In the main PO’s have always come across as pleasant and professional doing their job impeccably as you’d hope.

I know from discussing matters with them ,recently that yes they telephone and feedback their opinion to the decision making office who either refuse to change the decision or do agree to do so. I know I don’t get to cherry pick their cases and I guess it’s the same for your average PO.

I’ve had a PO recently who gave evidence (his observations) to the tribunal that tipped the balance in the client’s favour. In the main they’re neutral or helpful.

I’ve had very occasional (over the last 20yrs) other experiences where you get odd behaviours - (such as the friendly PO in the waiting area continuously pulling up his trousers whilst at the same time slagging off his dept. Jobcentre Minus he called it, only to turn off the friendly act in the hearing.

The biggest issue with PO’s is that they’re too far removed from the decision making process to be effective.

John Birks - 01 November 2018 10:12 AM

I don’t recognise any of the prior comments as typical of the PO’s I’ve come across in the last 20yrs.

In the main PO’s have always come across as pleasant and professional doing their job impeccably as you’d hope.

I know from discussing matters with them ,recently that yes they telephone and feedback their opinion to the decision making office who either refuse to change the decision or do agree to do so. I know I don’t get to cherry pick their cases and I guess it’s the same for your average PO.

I’ve had a PO recently who gave evidence (his observations) to the tribunal that tipped the balance in the client’s favour. In the main they’re neutral or helpful.

I’ve had very occasional (over the last 20yrs) other experiences where you get odd behaviours - (such as the friendly PO in the waiting area continuously pulling up his trousers whilst at the same time slagging off his dept. Jobcentre Minus he called it, only to turn off the friendly act in the hearing.

The biggest issue with PO’s is that they’re too far removed from the decision making process to be effective.

Really?

The two who retired in the past couple of years were the closest to what you describe. I’ve not had a new one yet with anything positive to contribute at all.

Mike Hughes - 01 November 2018 09:28 AM

nevip - 01 November 2018 12:10 AM

One PO recently told me that they have been told that their role is no longer that of amicus curiae.  The clerks here in Liverpool, amongst themselves, call the new younger intake baby baristas.  And, they are nothing much.  I always tell my clients that there isn’t a PO that I can’t either work with or deal with.  I really have no idea why they would want to do the job.  They might get away with it when there is no experienced rep’ there but when there is, they’ve got no chance of winning an argument.  In social security tribunals they are largely a complete waste of time and are no assistance whatsoever to the tribunal.

Are you sure “baby baristas” is referring to the POs? I’ve heard the term used pejoratively about the new intake of judges who have been recruited from other chambers and/or a bar background and appear to have little in the way of social security knowledge or people skills but lots of fantastically ill-informed opinions. Here in the North West we can no longer get a refusal to set aside or grant leave to appeal. Nope, we have to have two sides of opinion as to how wrong we are. Inevitably it’s an opinion UT judges profoundly disagree with.

Yes, I’m sure the clerk was talking about the younger crop of PO’s

Bit of a mixed bag with us.

I’ve got four regular POs who are older. Three of those are very reasonable and properly understand their role. One has never forgiven me for winning what he had obviously thought was an open-and-shut £120K recoverable overpayment/undisclosed capital appeal (with a linked £100k HB overpayment appeal) but even he has started to come round….

The recent intake - with one exception - just sit there looking stunned. The trainee solicitors/barristers that we get as observers from FRU appear more actively engaged in the process - and they, of course, aren’t even permitted to say anything. There’s one young eejit who thought he was the next Rumpole of the Bailey the first couple of times I saw him (“I put it to you…...” etc.) but he got humiliated/told off a couple of times by the Judge for his nonsense and went off with his tail between his legs.

Shouldn’t it be “baby barristers” rather than “baby baristas”? That said, some of the recent intake would be more use behind the jump in Café Nero, so perhaps not. :)