× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Decision making and appeals  →  Thread

What’s happening with the Tribunals Service?

 < 1 2

Dan_Manville
forum member

Mental health & welfare rights service - Wolverhampton City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 2262

Joined: 15 October 2012

So… I write “DIRECTIONS REQUEST” in the subject line of an email then say “please can I have direction that the Secretary of State provides a submission on X, Y & Z” in the body and it comes back to me as further evidence.

I call to check whether ; as I suspected, the subject had been overlooked but, no, worse than that; they had circulated because “you didn’t tell us it needed to be considered by a Judge”!

Words fail me; well, at least words I can utter on here.

I am going to kick something now.

edit; I am reminded of the days my old supervisor used to draft such requests with DIRECTIONS REQUEST in 72 point print to open. I’ll bet it cheered a few Judges up as well.

[ Edited: 8 May 2017 at 03:16 pm by Dan_Manville ]
Ruth_T
forum member

Volunteer adviser - Corby Borough Welfare Rights & CAB

Send message

Total Posts: 313

Joined: 21 June 2010

Try putting “REQUEST FOR INTERLOCUTORY DIRECTIONS”.    They’ll probably have to look up the meaning of “interlocutory”  and will then know the request should be placed before a Judge.  I’ve not (yet) had any problems, since I started doing this.

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

Text all in upper case is known to be the least legible because of the way we read. For my own amusement I periodically experiment with this with various organisations and people in and out of work. Sure enough, lower case and in bold seems to yield the more accurate responses, as in the thing appears to get read and understood. However, accurate does not necessarily equate to getting what you want!

At one point I titled a letter “FOR THE ATTENTION OF A JUDGE ONLY” in bold. Just got added to the bundle.

Re-sent the same letter 2 weeks later after I got my numbered copy and this time put “For the attention of a judge only” also in bold. Got a phone call to ask for clarity on what it was I was asking for 😊

Purely anecdotal obviously.

past caring
forum member

Welfare Rights Adviser - Southwark Law Centre, Peckham

Send message

Total Posts: 1116

Joined: 25 February 2014

My experience is of things becoming increasingly shambolic.

The following recent experience is merely illustrative;

- chase progress of LTA application some 4-5 months after submitting.

- promised call back eventually materialises. I am informed that GAPS records show the case is with the UT. How can this be the case, I ask, when it is only a leave application? For it to have gone to the UT, there would first of all have been a refusal of leave, followed by an application direct to the UT. Whilst I obviously do not have access to GAPS and so cannot be certain that there is no decision refusing leave, I do know that a) I’ve not received any such decision and b) more importantly, know that I haven’t made any application direct to the UT.

No, I am told, I’m mistaken, the case is definitely with the UT.

- as I have good relations with the registrar in a long-running case that is at the UT, I telephone just to be 100% certain. I even apologise, because I know it’s nonsense, but he’s happy to check. And I’m right - no record of anything on this case at the UT.

- sit tight and three weeks later I get the listing for the new hearing - in a week’s time. This is the first communication of any kind from HMCTS since the LTA was submitted.

- telephone to check. Yes - decision set aside. Why haven’t I had the set-aside decision and can I please have it? After some tooing and froing, this is reluctantly agreed.

- postponement application submitted the same day…..a) short notice, b) I’m on leave c) it’s important that I rather than a colleague represent due to the difficulty client has establishing relationships of trust and d) interests of justice require that the representative is aware of the basis of the set-aside decision and which of the several grounds advance the DTJ agreed with. Marked urgent, sent by email, ‘Urgent directions request - for the attention of a tribunal judge’ in the header and body.

- No response. I chase after three days to be told that whilst received, the application/paperwork has been placed on file for judge to deal with on the day. Further attempts to actually get the thing before a judge unceremoniously rebuffed.

- Set-aside decision eventually received on the Friday I go on leave. Arrange for a colleague to cover me and for client to attend, but on the day he doesn’t. Judge (apparently) furious but reluctantly adjourns. Colleague covering me not sufficiently confident to bite back and let panel know this is a mess entirely of HMCTS’s making…..