Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
we can’t sent the sub. to your rep.
“Enclosed is a copy of the documents about your appeal for your representative.
As you have not provided a name of an individual within that organistaion, for reasons of confidentiality, I cannot send the papers directly to that address.”
This appears to be a standard letter used by the appeal section of a particular Benefit Centre. Is this the DWPs latest attempt to reduce the number of appeals?
We have challenged the BC to provide a statutory basis for this procedure or confim it has been discontinued.
They are right but (as so often happens with them, for the wrong reasons). Rule 11 read together with rule 23 requires the representative to be named. So it has nothing to do with confidentiality.
However, reg 33(4) and (5) of the D&A Regs allows for some relaxation of the tribunal rules and allows the tribunal rules to be treated as satisfied. This allows the DM a certain discretion. Therefore, in light of the overall aims of the tribunal rules, fairness, avoidance of delay and avoidance of over formality, the DWP stance here is ridiculous and should be challenged at a policy level. We certainly don’t encounter this kind of nonsense round here.
I see nothing in the Rules which require the named representative to be an individual (within an organisation) rather than simply name the organisation. Would they require an individuals name if the representative is a firm of solicitors or a trade union?
Yes they would. For example, “legal representative”, as defined in rule 1 clearly refers to a particular individual (for the definition in s119(1) of the mentioned Act you need to look in the original Act and not the consolidated version). By extension, as there is no definition of “representative” the Department could argue, for the sake of context and consistency across the rules, that a “non-legal representative” should be named also.
I, personally, would try not to get dragged down this over pedantic approach where the Department dictates the terms of the argument but stick with my initial approach and attack on the broader front that across the statutes as a whole this is too strict an interpretation to what is required for the purpose at hand.
Actually it occurs to me that s6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 states that “unless the contrary intention appears words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular”.
So it could be argued that “representative” can be read as “representatives” notwithstanding the fact that an organization is itself a singular entity. Worth a go I would have thought.
I cannot see anything that requires a representative (distinguished from a “legal representative”) to be a natural person. Like nevip, I also cannot see any definition for the meaning of “representative”.
Unless I have overlooked something, my view is that the DWP is wrong.
As a general point, our general form of authority, used routinely to get the DWP (and everyone else for that matter, bar HMRC) to speak to us, does not name an individual worker. “Confidentiality” has never been raised as a reason to have that consent form amended.
I seem to recall a discussion where a tribunal took the view that the representative being sick/on holiday was not an acceptable reason to delay proceedings, because a reasonably-sized organization should be able to provide adequate cover. I.e. the appellant is essentially represented by the organization, not an individual?
I seem to recall a discussion where a tribunal took the view that the representative being sick/on holiday was not an acceptable reason to delay proceedings, because a reasonably-sized organization should be able to provide adequate cover. I.e. the appellant is essentially represented by the organization, not an individual?
Where a specific person has conduct of a case, a Tribunal (or Court) cannot necessarily presume that “a.n. other” can take over a case at short notice just because the organisation is large - see R v Social Security Cmmr ex parte Bibi [2000] QBD @ paras 17-18).
Thanks for all the imput. From a practical point we have always (for several decades!) put the organisation name on GL24s, our standard authority form etc, but not a named individual within our organisation. We have never had a problem with this with any part of DWP or TS or LAs until this particular Benefit Centre took over appeal cases for our area.
If this becomes more of an issue perhaps all Welfs should for these purposes be known as Fred Bloggs in future?
In this particular case the client has difficulty dealing with correspondance, keeping appointments etc so not seeing the sub. at an early stage is just another (unnessessary) pain in the **** created by one part of the DWP which seems to have adopted a procedure contrary to the practice of every other part of the same organisation (OK no great surprise - but!!)
As we have invited the BC concerned to justify their approach will post any response when received!
I seem to recall a discussion where a tribunal took the view that the representative being sick/on holiday was not an acceptable reason to delay proceedings, because a reasonably-sized organization should be able to provide adequate cover. I.e. the appellant is essentially represented by the organization, not an individual?
Where a specific person has conduct of a case, a Tribunal (or Court) cannot necessarily presume that “a.n. other” can take over a case at short notice just because the organisation is large - see R v Social Security Cmmr ex parte Bibi [2000] QBD @ paras 17-18).
But the unfairness described in that decision still happens, and it seems doubly unfair that a named person is expected to start the appeal process, but no allowance is made for their availability to finish it. Quote from a welf in 2009 evidence to the Work and Pension Committee:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmworpen/313/313.pdf
We keep getting them listed for days we cannot do, which we had told them we could not do in advance. Then they are refusing to postpone and are saying, “Well, somebody else in your organisation could represent them, you are a big organisation”. That is not fair to the client, the client knows me and trusts me. It is not that my colleagues are not just as good, but it is about feeling safe.
At least it won’t be an issue following clause 100 of the welfare reform bill becoming law - DMs will always get it right on revision and there will be no need for any appeals and therefore any reps!
We have now received a response from the BC concerned:
“It is our policy to send copies of appeal documents to all named representatives regardless of the name of the organisation. If the name of the representative is not supplied, and in order to protect the customers confidential information, a copy of the documentation is sent to the customer with a pre paid envelope for them to post it on to their representative.
This procedure has not been questioned before as most of our customers accept that we are acting in their interest to protect their personal information which often contains medical information of a highly personal nature.
I will make enquiries and find out if their is a statutory or legal requirement for this procedurebut, in the meantime, I would suggest that if you agree to act for someone it would be helpful if the customer was supplied with the name of their personal representative.”
Wouldn’t it be nice if the DWP had a single named person who deals with all aspects of a claimants claim!