Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
Strategic casework approach
I believe there have been some initial discussions about creating a similar entity within Rightsnet but, in the first instance, can I bring members attention to the work which has been going on in Greater Manchester to look at a different approach to resolving benefit issues? I won’t try and summarise the whole thing here but, briefly, it starts with using complaints, letters before action and JR (which have a response time of 15 working days) and a suggested outcome of a revision, as an alternative string to the bow to endless MRs and appeals. Please have a look at the link below.
Anyone wanting passwords for the password protected bits can email me at mike dot hughes at Salford dot gov dot uk.
https://gmwrag.wordpress.com/gmscg
Although it’s not that complex there is initially a lot to digest and work is currently being done on a 2 sided idiots guide (we may change that name :)) which will be uploaded as soon as we agree a final version along with a flow chart too.
Any questions? Ask away.
V interesting Mike. Think there will be scope to use with UC.
There’s scope to use across all benefits really but UC will ultimately be a mini-industry along with PIP I would imagine. The micro site (not really, but I like calling it that!) is very much a work in progress and we will be adding lots more templates; examples of successes using the approach; the aforementioned “idiots” guide, which won’t go over 2 sides of A4, and the flow-chart. After that we’ll be offering training to local WR services and we’re hoping it will develop naturally from there. We don’t expect to sell everyone on it immediately but it just takes one person in each service to try it; notice and publicise the changes in the speed things get dealt with and we hope others will follow. The big advantage is that, unlike a FTT, a complaint or a JR can change policy across the board.
I should emphasise that many colleagues across GM and further afield are working tirelessly on this to get it going. I’m just the typist.
Very pleased with the response to this. Have had a surprising number and diversity of requests from across the UK. Keep them coming. Glad there’s been an interest. About to run with my second and third cases using this approach and would welcome thoughts on the following:
DWP and HMCTS are covered by the Equality Act 2010 and the Public Sector Equality Duty. Both are anticipatory in nature so it’s relevant to remember that EA 10 was preceded by the DDA 95. Equally important to understanding the lack of competence in this area is that at least one or both of the above organisations still refer to having responsibilities under the latter!
Anyways… I have 2 clients who, in order to take part in their appeals, require large print appeal papers. Would also assist me as a rep. sadly. Not a big ask you would think. Should be obvious that some people claiming ESA, DLA or PIP will be sight impaired and have that need. Both organisations have, from my perspective, only had 22 years to anticipate the need. Imagine my surprise when HMCTS tell me in both cases that they have neither the facility nor the funding to do this! One presumes DQTMs with a sight impairment don’t get recruited then?
In both cases TS is saying that they’ve sent my request to DWP in respect of the “response” as “DWP provide the response to all parties”. I think these latter statements raise several issues:
1) I think by “response” TS really mean “DWP sub” and not, as I do, “every page of the appeal papers”.
2) I was under the impression DWP provided 1 copy of the appeal papers to TS and then the latter “provide the response to all parties”.
If both my clients agree (and that seems likely) I will be progressing both to EA 10 complaints with the assistance of EHRC. The question is… who is the complaint against? TS, DWP or both?
Additional question on this? Anyone got similar cases? Care to join me?
Thoughts?
PS: I loved TS writing me one large print letter then reverting to 10 or 12 point in the next one and claiming they had no facility. That was magnificent 😊
Your request is to HMCTS so that’s where I think you should aim the complaint. Them saying “it’s not our fault, it’s the DWP” doesn’t really cut the mustard, they are the public body your clients are dealing with directly.
Thanks Paul. I was inclined to hedge my bets and go for both but my brain kept telling me it was HMCTS only and you’ve now articulated why. Will be taking counsel from EHRC or PLP on this once the next level of complaint has been exhausted.
That said, it would be amusing if DWP could produce fully large print appeal papers but HMCTS couldn’t then reproduce that for all parties.
Similar tactics now being used locally for failure to attend cases and unnecessary invites to face to face assessments for people who must be known to be vulnerable with mental ill health issues; learning difficulties and so on. Complaint/letter before action noting the public law principle of using what you already know and the anticipatory nature of EA 10.
1) I think by “response” TS really mean “DWP sub” and not, as I do, “every page of the appeal papers”.
2) I was under the impression DWP provided 1 copy of the appeal papers to TS and then the latter “provide the response to all parties”.
For what its worth (which isn’t much as both bodies have copies of all the paperwork), its the responsibility of the DWP to send the response to all parties (Rule 24(5)) and the responsibility of the Tribunal to circulate post-response paperwork (Rule 24(7)).
Thanks Elliot. So we have a scenario in which the DWP delegate their responsibility to HMCTS.
I suspect this does lead me towards pursuing both parties as most cases inevitably involve a bit of both.
Will be interesting to talk to RNIB, Henshaws, Action and others about whether this is an issue for their clients.
The problem you run into when complaining to HMCTS about EQA infractions is that Judicial functions are exempt from EQA; thus you add a second layer of complexity in separating out what’s Judicial and what’s administrative. I did a lot of research on this a few years ago in the run up to my last PCA appeal and could find no authority on where the divide lies.
Mike; to my mind you likely need to be thinking along the lines of private law claims; if you can show there’s been a consistent lack of adjustments you might be able to argue a mid level compo award which would interest the Legal Aid Agency and make it a lot easier to drag the Sec State into Court.
Care to join me?
Yo know me; I’ve been banging on about the EQA for years now and had some intriguing results along the way… Are you going to the PLP North conference?
Thanks Dan. I’d like to think that large print appeal papers was clearly administrative but we shall see. It does occur to me that there may be a judicial element as there’s often a conversation about whether a case is ready to list.
Yes, several members of our Strategic Casework group are going to be at the event on the 20th. Most of us are relatively new to this (although I’ve been involved in lots of EA 10 stuff outside of benefits for quite a while) so we want to make sure the group is fully up to speed in order to be able to train and support others. Oh, and nicking materials. Mustn’t forget nicking materials 😊
So, at the risk of sounding like a Ray Lowry blues man cartoon in NME (for men of a certain age 😊) I “... woke up this morning to find a very large bundle in my work tray.”
It’s my first genuine actual large print appeal papers. 368 pages from start to end; bound and on very nice card. Includes not just the sub. but all the evidence transcribed, including handwritten letters from the client. Produced by DWP not HMCTS. It’s taken 4 months and 2 previous sets of appeal papers (1 was all A4 and 1 was large print sub only).
Interestingly, this is a reasonable adjustment for me as rep. The client doesn’t need it. A very positive development indeed, or, a rod for their own back 😊
Yay!!
If this forum allowed pictures I would post it up. Thought I was receiving books.
or, a rod for their own back :)
lol!
or, a rod for their own back :)
lol!
Has to be viewed as the start not the end.
This from the organisation which said it had neither the facilities nor the funding.
Bound appeal papers adds a touch of class. I will look “proper” walking into the Civil Justice Centre. I think you should all start asking for bound appeal papers :)
I think you should all start asking for bound appeal papers :)
Sadly I can’t think of Equalities grounds to demand them and, even if I could contrive such, enough Judges read this page that I’d probably hear their laughter all the way from Temple Courts if I were to try.