Forum Home → Discussion → Other benefit issues → Thread
60% of appeals are ‘no brainers’ ... says senior president of tribunals
Britain’s most senior tribunal judge says most of the benefits cases that reach court are based on bad decisions where the Department for Work and Pensions has no case at all.
Sir Ernest Ryder, senior president of tribunals, also said the quality of evidence provided by the DWP is so poor it would be “wholly inadmissible” in any other court.
Speaking at a Bar Council event .... this week, Ryder said his judges found that 60% of cases were “no-brainers” where there was nothing in the law or facts that would make the DWP win.
More: https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilydugan/most-dwp-benefits-cases-which-reach-court-are-based-on-bad
“In case management I could send back those cases to the DWP and say, ‘You might as well remake them, because there is no argument that a tribunal could hear. There’s no justiciable defence to the appeal.’ Why don’t I? That’s the argument we’re thinking about long and hard, because the appellant doesn’t lose anything.”
Send them back to them then Ernie instead of just spouting about it, send some sort of direction round encouraging all judges to. Drawing attention to the issue is nice and everything but as you’ve pointed out you could do something other than have a long think.
...A DWP spokesperson said: “The fact is a very small minority of our cases are appealed and then go to a tribunal. For example, more than 2.4 million PIP decisions have been made, and of these 8% have been appealed and 4% have been overturned. The majority of successful appeals are overturned because people have submitted more written or oral evidence.”
However, this data does not include mandatory reconsiderations, which can mean that a DWP decision is overturned before an appeal is necessary. Around 20% of cases are put forward for MR.
The spokesperson added: “We strive to maintain the highest standards, and that’s reflective in the recent Independent Case Examiner’s report which showed only 0.3% of people who’ve made direct contact with us made a complaint.”
Just because people do not complain (or appeal) doesn’t mean the business is successful - it may mean that the system in place is confusing, opaque and just very hard for all but the most determined or belligerent to get to the end.
IME the level of determination or belligerence is often diametrically opposed to the righteousness of the matter. People simply give up. Part of that is due to your client group - imposing an unfathomable system of administration on people with limited skills is unnecessarily cruel.
As my mum used to say ‘the more corrupt the state, the more laws.’
“In case management I could send back those cases to the DWP and say, ‘You might as well remake them, because there is no argument that a tribunal could hear. There’s no justiciable defence to the appeal.’ Why don’t I? That’s the argument we’re thinking about long and hard, because the appellant doesn’t lose anything.”
Send them back to them then Ernie instead of just spouting about it, send some sort of direction round encouraging all judges to. Drawing attention to the issue is nice and everything but as you’ve pointed out you could do something other than have a long think.
Can’t help but think if the tribunals service were still financed by the DWP, we would not be in this position.
As it is one department can legitimately (in their own way) blame the other for the issues and not make any inner changes.
“Polluter pays” principle was raised when LASPO went through in 2012, governement wasn’t all interested.
The spokesperson added: “We strive to maintain the highest standards, and that’s reflective in the recent Independent Case Examiner’s report which showed only 0.3% of people who’ve made direct contact with us made a complaint.”
The Independent Case Examiner (ICE) is one person who manages a team that deals with complaints about DWP.
The team is comprised of DWP employees.
The spokesperson added: “We strive to maintain the highest standards, and that’s reflective in the recent Independent Case Examiner’s report which showed only 0.3% of people who’ve made direct contact with us made a complaint.”
The Independent Case Examiner (ICE) is one person who manages a team that deals with complaints about DWP.
The team is comprised of DWP employees.
The steps & process for making a complaint is even more labyrinthine than MR & appeal!
Just think of the outcry if 65% of criminal cases referred to the courts by CPS were found to have no merit!
ICE complaints process is as disgraceful as that the DWP claims to be a complaints process. Essentially, if they did everything they should have within the time-limits then all is tickety boo. It’s a waste of time yet you can’t get to an Ombudsman unless it’s been done. Exhausting due process is the term. As opposed to “the process is exhausting” I presume! Not that PHSO are fit for purpose. Had to complain about them three times in recent years. In two cases they managed to lose the complaint!
When I’m back in the office I am going to be pointing out to NW complaints resolution team that that nice case where I tried to save some public money by not going to appeal to get a client from 11 to 13 points on PIP daily living was won in 3 minutes at said appeal hearing and involved an entire tribunal snorting and laughing at the DWP argument, which was essentially that I was asking for something “outwith the scope of the law”. How outrageous of me. NWCRT first said they shouldn’t be used to revise decisions and secondly said they’d run it past a case manager, who declined to change the decision. They then reluctantly escalated it and still came to the same conclusion. It was the very definition of a no-brainer. Think I mentioned it on here as I was incredulous I needed to pursue it. Claimant gets 2 pts. for aids when cooking but should get 4 for assistance from another person as daughter in law cooked them fresh food on the weekend and son bought, chopped and froze everything else for them to defrost and microwave throughout the week.
Very much a case of be careful what you wish for though. A HMCTS funded by a DWP as politicised, inept and intransigent as I have ever seen an organisation be (bar HMRC obvs.) is not what you want in charge of appeal.
Written answer yesterday from Baroness Buscombe on Sir Ernest Ryder’s comments -
The Department is considering the comments and will also be meeting with Ministry of Justice officials to discuss the concerns raised.
...A DWP spokesperson said: “The fact is a very small minority of our cases are appealed and then go to a tribunal. For example, more than 2.4 million PIP decisions have been made, and of these 8% have been appealed and 4% have been overturned. The majority of successful appeals are overturned because people have submitted more written or oral evidence.”
However, this data does not include mandatory reconsiderations, which can mean that a DWP decision is overturned before an appeal is necessary. Around 20% of cases are put forward for MR.
The spokesperson added: “We strive to maintain the highest standards, and that’s reflective in the recent Independent Case Examiner’s report which showed only 0.3% of people who’ve made direct contact with us made a complaint.”
Just because people do not complain (or appeal) doesn’t mean the business is successful - it may mean that the system in place is confusing, opaque and just very hard for all but the most determined or belligerent to get to the end.
IME the level of determination or belligerence is often diametrically opposed to the righteousness of the matter. People simply give up. Part of that is due to your client group - imposing an unfathomable system of administration on people with limited skills is unnecessarily cruel.
As my mum used to say ‘the more corrupt the state, the more laws.’
The PIP overturn rate in the quarter to September 18 is 72%.
The important point, which the DWP Spokesperson tries to gloss over, is that 72% of the DM’s decisions going to appeal ,were wrong.
I think it safe to assume that 72% of decisions which did not go to appeal are also wrong, i.e., under-awarded. This is where DWP really makes its money, this is where ESA/DLA/PIP claimants are really being shafted, IMO.
In order to make solid counter arguments I prefer to err on the side of empiricism. In no sense could it ever be safe to assume that 72% of decisions which do not proceed to appeal are also wrong but also I’m struggling to see any sense in which DWP “really makes its money”. Say what? PIP and UC are running way over budget. Who exactly is making money? Poor decision making certainly leads to loss of income but that‘s a different thing altogether.