Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
Judges to explain decisions
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22991447
Well they (Tribunal Judges) are going to love this
A statement of reasons for each decision they make?
I don’t know where the 85% figure came from
I win about 80% of my appeals
I can see a plethera of applications to the Upper Tribunal being made, which will clog the system up even more
Is this going to be something more than the “drop-down menu” feedback option listed under “Information for the decision-maker” that currently can appear on decision notices? A judge I spoke to in May about this was quite dismissive of it being of much help to decision-makers, or of them taking any action as a result of the tribunal’s comments.
Hang around long enough and things go around in cycles. So, we’re now back where we were 20 years ago. The difference I would guess is that they must be listing twice as much as they did back then. The consquences are going to be all too predictable.
1) Massive delays on the day.
2) A huge increase in postal decisions.
3) A forseeable mutiny by clerks and members about the extension of their working day.
The general “courtification” (as one colleague put it) of tribunals proceeeds apace.
Isn’t this just DWP re-announcing something that already happens (with the drop down boxes) or BBC picking it up months after the original announcement? I note the article also re-hashes the 15% appeal success spin despite that ONS has already critisised the DWP for misrepresenting stats!
Given that I have just sent off a third stage complaint about HMCTS failing to provide statement of reasons requested over 6 moths ago it is implausable that a detailed (even if not ‘full’) statement will be produced in every case.
Isn’t this just DWP re-announcing something that already happens (with the drop down boxes) or BBC picking it up months after the original announcement? I note the article also re-hashes the 15% appeal success spin despite that ONS has already critisised the DWP for misrepresenting stats!
Given that I have just sent off a third stage complaint about HMCTS failing to provide statement of reasons requested over 6 moths ago it is implausable that a detailed (even if not ‘full’) statement will be produced in every case.
No, this is a genuine reversion to full decision. Outline of main evidence; findings of fact and reasons.
How interesting that DWP (a party to proceedings) is apparently able to lobby HMCTS/MOJ behind the scenes to get adjustments made to Tribunal processes in order to suit them and them alone. In the same way, DWP lobbied MOJ about the ESA video on YouTube yet the advice sector is excluded from these communications. It creates a real perception of partiality.
Of course if DWP actually bothered to attend hearings, they could find out directly why Tribunals determine cases either way.
Totally agree but it’s possibly a bit harsh to suggest they alone will benefit. One of the real problems of the past few years has been the need to request full written reasons simply because there was no clue as to how a tribunal arrived at a decision that externally looked perverse. Thinking back to how this used to work I would say this is more likely to trigger UT appeals on our side than DWP.
The reality with DWP is that at a high level they want staff to understood why decisions have been made but at the decision making level nothing changes in terms of how and why decisions are made. No matter how much detail a decision has your average DM will refer it upwards as a point of principle rather than law because they disagree. Subjectivity rules. “I don’t THINK this person is entitled.” Therefore, they are not. Margaret Thatcher household principle applies. DMs think it’s their money that’s at stake.
Two examples:
1) PS o/p appeal at which they don’t attend but prior to which I have a bizarre phone call in which they state that “even I…” could not argue that the claimant didn’t owe the money. Tribunal was never going to lose on the facts as PS had no evidence to support non-disclosure but there was also no evidence of proper supersessions. PS asked for full written reasons which spelt this out in full. PS apply for leave to appeal anyway and somehow get it. If it goes back to a new appeal I have no doubt it will win a second time.
2) Co-hab appeal where PS do a visit where their own report, however poor, points toward no co-hab. Our written submission reinforces every single aspect of that. DM (funnily enough the same one as above) refuses on recon. and refuses recon. again on appeal. It’s the sort of appeal I’ve had many times before where the judge is just embarrassed and sends a clerk out to say you’ve won but need to come in just to rubber stamp it. It could not be any more clear cut. I have absolutely no doubt the person in question will apply for leave to appeal.
Given the attitudes and personality you describe, I doubt that a full decision will make them see the light and stop them disputing Tribunal decisions.
That was my point Neil. We will probably benefit more but the UT system will be clogged up as previously. Nothing will change on the DWP side until they attend all hearings and get it spelt out!!!
We have now been able to ask several judges, including district judge, about this - they no nothing! The DJ commented ‘if the govt. really want TS to do this they will have to give us a lot more money’.
Suspect this item is DWP spinning old news or BBC getting the wrong end of the stick (or both!).
Of course if presenting officers did actually attend - given the reaction of Mark Hoban at a recent meeting about the WCA the govt view is ’ there is no problem’ (read: ‘we don’t care’).
More on this from Esther McVey in the House of Commons yesterday, when she said that -
‘From 10 June, judges in four social security and child support tribunals are providing the Department for Work and Pensions with more in-depth information on why they overturn employment and support allowance decisions. That builds on the drop-down list of primary reasons for overturning decisions that was introduced last July.’
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130701/debtext/130701-0001.htm#1307011000028
Which 4?
Which 4?
London, Liverpool, Glasgow and Birmingham as per the BBC story. It doesn’t explicitly state that appellants will also receive this “feedback”.
I worked in a decision making capacity once (not in social security) and long before I got involved in welfare rights. The idiot who was in charge would often have to justify many of the team’s decisions before an appeal committee. He then had to feedback the committee’s finding to us with a view to improving our decision making. That was the theory anyway. What he did in reality was work out how we could make exactly the same decisions but in a way that would make it difficult for the committee to subsequently challenge.
As we know, after the National Assistance Act 1948 the question of benefit entitlement became one of legal entitlement rather than one of the benevolence of a decison maker. That is the theory anyway. In practice, the very wide margin of appreciation which the tribunal has, together with a very low threshold (do you even need 5 years’ PQE?) for judicial recruitment to the F-tT, and an appeal to the UT based on grounds of irrationality only, make the question of entitlement still often a matter of pot luck and benevolence. Until we have audio recording of tribunals we’re unlikely to get close to justice. I intend raising some of these issues with North East politicians. There are some judges at Newcastle who are an utter menace to disabled people.
[ Edited: 2 Jul 2013 at 06:28 pm by Tom H ]Tom H - are you aware that Scottish tribunals are recorded now? It’s very useful
Tom H - are you aware that Scottish tribunals are recorded now? It’s very useful
No I wasn’t. Thanks very much for pointing that out.
In answer to the criticism that too many appeals find that “the wrong decision was made in the first place”, Esther McVey says “the majority of overturns are the result of new information being supplied on appeal”. Are there any statistics to back this up?
More to the point, what does “supplied on appeal” mean? It seems to me that it often refers to information made available to the DWP before the hearing, which they consider but do not find sufficient to change their minds. In which case, it is still very much the case that decision-makers and tribunals are taking a different view of the same facts. And given that the FTT generally gets the last word, the DMs are indeed getting far too many decisions “wrong”.
(Or does she mean evidence supplied at the hearing itself, which the DWP fail to attend?)