Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
Paper Based Appeals
Sorry, way OT I know.
I wouldn’t say it was OT. As another ex-CAB, and NACAB, I worry about this. Not just because of the lack of representation but, because it’s a policy and CitA gets a disproportionate share of public funding, the result is that public funding is further reduced for this necessary support.
I did not mean to hijack this thread :D
I was attending with clients in my previous, non-CAB job, so I really could see the value.
But this is a meaty subject. Starting from why such enormous jump in success rate for appellants who are represented in person, and ending with the mantra of empowerment (which is fine, but no matter how much I’d like to be empowered, I cannot fix my car)
Whole other discussion to be had about those who suggest to appellants that they are being represented but fail to mention that this amounts to a written submission but nothing in person.
Did you know that the scope of the Help to Claim project specifically excludes casework around challenging DWP decisions? So if you are doing HTC work, you are not allowed to write subs. Cry/laugh emoij.
Whole other discussion to be had about those who suggest to appellants that they are being represented but fail to mention that this amounts to a written submission but nothing in person.
Did you know that the scope of the Help to Claim project specifically excludes casework around challenging DWP decisions? So if you are doing HTC work, you are not allowed to write subs. Cry/laugh emoij.
Yes, I did. It’s very literal is HTC. Help to claim and… nothing else whatsoever.
Did you know that the scope of the Help to Claim project specifically excludes casework around challenging DWP decisions? So if you are doing HTC work, you are not allowed to write subs. Cry/laugh emoij.
That’s outrageous! Fine for CAB funds, where, presumably, payment on a per-case basis means the same money, but just for the nice, simple cherry-picked cases. In more difficult cases, HTC becomes Hinder the Claim instead.
I did not mean to hijack this thread :D
I was attending with clients in my previous, non-CAB job, so I really could see the value.
But this is a meaty subject. Starting from why such enormous jump in success rate for appellants who are represented in person, and ending with the mantra of empowerment (which is fine, but no matter how much I’d like to be empowered, I cannot fix my car)
It is indeed a meaty subject and Gareth makes a good point in terms of CitA hoovering up public money whilst in many ways the price for that has been far too high and some services, such as representation, have fallen by the wayside despite demand being huge.
In terms of success rates I think that sadly one of the things we never really get to discuss is that the training for tribunal panel members is superficial at best and appalling on the whole. There’s an assumption that your formal or informal qualifications will more than suffice so long as you know where to find the law and have a few pointers. Couldn’t be further from the truth. Medical professionals like to flex their muscles and genuinely don’t understand why judges get paid more (whilst simultaneously trying to drive decisions that have complete disregard for the law even when the judge points that out) whilst it’s often hard to find anyone with more obvious prejudices than a DQM or less knowledge of the law than the judge.
The insistence upon recruiting people with a background as a barrister in recent years has done real damage. There are always the odd exceptions (I can think of literally one in GM) but generally it is hard to find anyone with such an inflated sense of their own importance allied to such a lacking knowledge of basic social security. It is gratifying but wholly embarrassing the number of times you come out of appeals where it is obvious to the appellant that you as rep know far more than the judge.
I have always thought that any successes I have as a rep are essentially in the realms of pointing out the bleeding obvious to those for whom it apparently is not.
Did you know that the scope of the Help to Claim project specifically excludes casework around challenging DWP decisions? So if you are doing HTC work, you are not allowed to write subs. Cry/laugh emoij.
That’s outrageous! Fine for CAB funds, where, presumably, payment on a per-case basis means the same money, but just for the nice, simple cherry-picked cases. In more difficult cases, HTC becomes Hinder the Claim instead.
I don’t write subs. I write “drafts” and “skeleton arguments” ....
We attend appeals, I assumed most agencies did? I live and learn!!!!!!!!!!
We attend appeals, I assumed most agencies did? I live and learn!!!!!!!!!!
Ssh - don’t tell anyone or they will all want to go!
We attend appeals, I assumed most agencies did? I live and learn!!!!!!!!!!
Ssh - don’t tell anyone or they will all want to go!
Lucky I didn’t mention the X53 bus to Weymouth travelling along the Jurassic coast in parts or the venue facing the harbour!!!!!!!!!
Back to the issue of paper hearings. All of my clients have severe and enduring mental health conditions. This means that some of them can’t take part in oral hearings. I see paper hearings as part of the armoury for these cases. I’ve asked for paper hearings in only a handful of cases in the all of the years that I’ve been a Welfare Rights Officer - but largely with success. Of course, it all depends on the case. I would only do this with a case when the client felt they would have to withdraw if they didn’t have the option of a paper hearing. I would certainly never penalise a client by refusing to represent them if their mental health condition meant that they couldn’t take part in an oral hearing! Although the better, and more frequently used, way around this is for a client’s Care Co-ordinator to attend the oral hearing instead of them.
I had a case recently where the client was very tempted by having a paper hearing because he was so anxious about taking part in an oral hearing - to the point that the first oral (telephone) hearing was adjourned because the client was in the bathroom vomiting. I advised this client against having a paper hearing because his case didn’t seem strong enough on the papers alone.
Because of the nature of my client group, I have a higher than average rate of the judge telling us at the start of an oral hearing that they have already made a decision on the papers. This has continued despite the triaging that is supposed to be happening during the pandemic.
I appreciate that my experience isn’t representative of most reps/appellants, but I wanted to flag up that we shouldn’t dismiss paper hearings as being something that we should never use.
On a tactical point - paper hearings are listed very quickly, so when I have requested them I have done so at the point of sending in my submission and once I know that all of the evidence has been received.
What are the negative statistics of paper hearings based on? Could it be that they are primarily composed of unrepresented appeals where the appellant didn’t know any better and though they would save themselves a bit of stress - with no additional evidence submitted etc? I.e. more a complaint in effect than an appeal.
If on a paper hearing the panel has in front of them a HCP assessment and DWP decision with its usual copy paste statements and illogical reasoning, and a sound and thorough bit of evidence from a medical professional (perhaps along with a written statement from the appellant) I don’t see how they could base their decision on the former, at least not without opening themselves up to a challenge in the UT. DWP says A, but that conflicts with evidence B, C and D, so points are awarded.
If anything, the fundamental issue would be the absence of an appellant to explain any issues in their argument, connect the dots to the evidence etc - i.e. WHY does B, C and D support your claim, in the cases where the panel can’t logically reach that conclusion on their own.
If the new Scottish disability benefits rely more on evidence from medical professionals, rather than assessments, I wonder if we’ll see more appeals that can be decided on papers alone, purely on the basis that SSS made the wrong decision based on the existing evidence available.