Expenses and audio visual appeals

At the .moment, well historically anyway, persons attending their appeal can claim travel expenses, typically bus or train fares. As we move forward into the digital age, I was wondering, if the need to buy data for a audio video appeal constitutes an expense appellants can claim. I have been told by someone who should know that unlike phone calls those making video calls or more accurately, receiving them need either data in their phones or indeed access to wifi. Given many of our service users make use of public facilities, libraries for example,to go on line or at best use PAYG phones then to take part in A/V appeals they will need to purchase extra data, will they be able to claim the cost, and how much data will need to be purchased to facilitate an appeal that typically lasts an hour?

I think the question maybe assumes a compulsion towards a video hearing but my understanding was that there will be no such compulsion i.e. if someone at HMCTS directs a video hearing as appropriate then there’s an opportunity to argue that it may not be. I would think hardship would play a part there.

Slack use of the “we” there too 😊

Many of us are very much in the digital age and have been for a long time. DWP and HMCTS on the other hand (20 years into the 21st century)…

I confess I prefer books and paper to a screen, I prefer a pen to a keyboard or a stylus (though I believe the ancient Romans used these to write into clay) and I still have a paper diary, if not ‘we’,  then ‘I ‘. ????

The rule on expenses is rule 21, tribunal procedure rules, (I looked it up in sweet and maxwell), it puts a value on travel and other expenses. It looks like it is open to covering data expense as well, opinions please?

I am aware that I am using tech to ask my question, a matter of needs must…

Honestly don’t see it as relevant as there’s not intended to be an obligation to attend a video hearing. However, assuming for a moment that there was then I cannot see why rule 21 would not cover data costs.

We have recently received a Directions Notice regarding an appeal against a UC sanction.  The terms of the notice are clear and polite:

1. The Judge considers that it will be possible to fairly decide this appeal with either a video-based hearing or a telephone hearing.

2. You are invited to confirm to HMCTS within 7 days whether you would be willing to engage in a hearing using one of these forms.

3. If you are willing to engage in a video-based hearing, …

4. If you do not wish to proceed by way of a video based hearing, the matter shall be listed for a telephone based hearing on the first available date.

5. …. (a note to the effect that for obvious reasons they can’t view documents over the phone, so they will need to be submitted in good time).

Neither our client nor our organisation have the facility to do a video-based appeal, so we’ve opted for a telephone one.

I confess that it had not crossed my mind that clients might have to buy extra data in order to attend a video-conference hearing.

I have only taken part in audio hearings so far and HMCTS pay the cost of the call.

I did attend a user group meeting via Skype recently and video hearings were discussed although the question of paying for data was not raised.

There is one obvious situation where the choice can only be that of a physical face to face hearing or a video-conference hearing   and that is where the appellant is deaf and needs a signer to interpret.

If that appellant does not have access to (fee)  wifi or an unlimited data package, there will obviously be a potential Equality Act issue if (s)he is not allowed expenses for extra data use

I personally think Rule 21 is broad enough to cover expenses for the purchase of extra data