Forum Home → Discussion → Decision making and appeals → Thread
tribunal stats by representation
I’m surprised by the paper hearing success rate. It’s significantly higher than I would have imagined.
I’m surprised by the paper hearing success rate. It’s significantly higher than I would have imagined.
All those pesky claimants who don’t send in their additional evidence until the appeal stage and then don’t want to attend their own appeal hearing?
I’m surprised by the paper hearing success rate. It’s significantly higher than I would have imagined.
All those pesky claimants who don’t send in their additional evidence until the appeal stage and then don’t want to attend their own appeal hearing?
Interesting stuff.
I have an impression, and it’s just that, that TS falling apart administratively (which seems to be more than just my impression) has led to a number of paper hearings that might actually be re-hearings of oral cases adjourned for medical records etc. which then produce evidence so plainly contradicting your average ATOS report that the outcome is inevitably positive and doesn’t require an appellant to attend.
We also seem to live in a world where clerks are much more proactive, presumably at the behest of judges but who knows, and oral hearings seem to increasingly get pulled with appellants told they have no need to attend because they’ve won. I don’t know how either of these scenarios get classified but it wouldn’t surprise me if they get called paper hearings.
Inevitably, given that paper hearings have been around for a good while now, I also think that feedback from UT decisions filters down and with certain judges more positive decisions are achieved than we used to get maybe 5 years ago. My general experience has been that UT judges take a dimmer view of the conduct of paper hearings than you might otherwise suspect.
I also seem to recall some research somewhere showing that the impact of reps. had diminished over the years although it’s inevitably impossible to draw any concrete conclusions on that front as there are probably less of us; benefits are far more prescriptive; tribunals are much less willing to hear a rep. from the off and save themselves some time and so on.
Finally though, I guess it’s useful to remember that we deal with a minority of appellants and many, many claimants do win oral and paper hearings without us and not always because of outstanding evidence but perhaps equally because of the ability of the tribunal to pull information out of an appellant. Grieves me to right that :) but it’s undoubtedly true.
I’ve just had a brief look at the figures and if I’m reading them correctly the favourable decisions in paper hearings seem to be low at 18 - 19%. I would much rather take my chances at an oral hearing with representation. This seems to push your chances up to well above 50% and up to over 70% for some benefits?
I’ve just had a brief look at the figures and if I’m reading them correctly the favourable decisions in paper hearings seem to be low at 18 - 19%. I would much rather take my chances at an oral hearing with representation. This seems to push your chances up to well above 50% and up to over 70% for some benefits?
It does, and I suspect a lot of people don’t actively elect for a paper hearing and that failure to do so might actually be an indicator of their physical/mental health issues.
And then how do you break down how much of the 50-70% is down to having a rep. and how much is down to simply having an appellant in front of a tribunal or the many other factors which come into play? It’s not really as simple as comparing unrepped to repped as there are always other variables which come into play. Edging into Ben Goldacre Bad Science territory here but…
I’ve just had a brief look at the figures and if I’m reading them correctly the favourable decisions in paper hearings seem to be low at 18 - 19%. I would much rather take my chances at an oral hearing with representation. This seems to push your chances up to well above 50% and up to over 70% for some benefits?
It does, and I suspect a lot of people don’t actively elect for a paper hearing and that failure to do so might actually be an indicator of their physical/mental health issues.
And then how do you break down how much of the 50-70% is down to having a rep. and how much is down to simply having an appellant in front of a tribunal or the many other factors which come into play? It’s not really as simple as comparing unrepped to repped as there are always other variables which come into play. Edging into Ben Goldacre Bad Science territory here but…
Ageed ... but
The figures of 70% success where a rep is recorded by HMCTS has been consistent over many years - having someone with a claimant obviously makes some difference (even if they are a relative and in practice simply provide additional oral evidence or increase the claimant’s ability to give their own oral evidence by their mere presence as a ‘handholder’).
And many advice etc. organisations who represent (like ourselves) consitently report success rates (at least for DLA/ESA) at around 90%. I would assume the difference a rep from an organisation makes in most cases is to gather relevant evidence and ensure it is before the tribunal in an appropriate way, rather than the ‘arguments’ they make for the claimant during the hearing itself.
It has always been a matter of debate whether a rep. attending the hearing makes much difference on the day rather than the preparatory work they do beforehand. I guess only tribunals can answer that question.
Ageed ... but
The figures of 70% success where a rep is recorded by HMCTS has been consistent over many years - having someone with a claimant obviously makes some difference (even if they are a relative and in practice simply provide additional oral evidence or increase the claimant’s ability to give their own oral evidence by their mere presence as a ‘handholder’).
And many advice etc. organisations who represent (like ourselves) consitently report success rates (at least for DLA/ESA) at around 90%. I would assume the difference a rep from an organisation makes in most cases is to gather relevant evidence and ensure it is before the tribunal in an appropriate way, rather than the ‘arguments’ they make for the claimant during the hearing itself.
It has always been a matter of debate whether a rep. attending the hearing makes much difference on the day rather than the preparatory work they do beforehand. I guess only tribunals can answer that question.
I’m not so sure that figure is consistent. It has been broken down more in recent years and varies considerably between benefits. There has also been recent evidence (can’t recall where now but possibly here) that the impact of reps. is in decline for many of the reasons specified already. There was at one point a breakdown of oral hearings showing success rate with no appellant; only the appellant; appellant with another person; appellant with rep. Steady incline as you might expect but the big leap was “another person” rather than rep. and it was posited that this was as you say because of the benefits of hand-holding.
However, hand-holding in itself is no guarantee of anything and it was further posited that the real issue was that “something” enabled an appellant relax; not feel in opposition to the tribunal and give their evidence fully without confrontation etc. There is of course an argument that a properly trained and equipped tribunal should be perfectly capable of doing that “something” themselves and indeed many is the time I have sat back with specific tribunals and let them do their stuff confident that little would be missed.
Where I personally draw the line is when organisations (with all due respect of course Peter) start claiming figures wildly in excess of the reported rates, which themselves must be subject to considerable scepticism.
I once went 2 years without losing an appeal at a rate of 1 per week. I consider it meaningless. Pure fluke. Sometimes I had great evidence. Other times I missed stuff good tribunals picked up on. Sometimes the chair liked me and sometimes I won on reputation. Overall? Meaningless. Great for my confidence but so what!
We all know people who make such claims as an assertion of their knowledge and credibility. I tend to the view that just as there are outstanding reps out there so there are those who cherry pick. Repping almost always has a positive impact but figures such as these hide a myriad of things.
Many years ago, in the voluntary sector, I lost count of the times I had advisers with “unbeaten runs” and how much it seemed to matter. It was odd how some of the people they had categorically advised would have no titled to things like DLA etc. were back with us within 3 months and qualified for good awards pursued by other advisers (often over a period of years until successful) not brought on by sudden changes of circs! It’s a human thing to claim a success as your own rather than a statistical probability but it can lead to such unhelpful claims.
I recently spent time in part undoing work done by a lone practitioner who claimed they had only had one failure ever. The number of people who told me that they’d been advised to lie; only put down their worst days when their condition was hugely variable and so on shows just where such stats. can lead.
I’ve no desire to be inside the tent etc. but I would urge caution in this sort of discussion. Some people believe their own publicity. Life, like the truth, and especially like welfare rights work, is a lot more complex!!!
Good reps. can change peoples lives for the better. Stats. are not really an indication of what makes a good rep. or of the precise impact a good rep. can make.
Ageed ... but
The figures of 70% success where a rep is recorded by HMCTS has been consistent over many years - having someone with a claimant obviously makes some difference (even if they are a relative and in practice simply provide additional oral evidence or increase the claimant’s ability to give their own oral evidence by their mere presence as a ‘handholder’).
And many advice etc. organisations who represent (like ourselves) consitently report success rates (at least for DLA/ESA) at around 90%. I would assume the difference a rep from an organisation makes in most cases is to gather relevant evidence and ensure it is before the tribunal in an appropriate way, rather than the ‘arguments’ they make for the claimant during the hearing itself.
It has always been a matter of debate whether a rep. attending the hearing makes much difference on the day rather than the preparatory work they do beforehand. I guess only tribunals can answer that question.
I’m not so sure that figure is consistent. It has been broken down more in recent years and varies considerably between benefits. There has also been recent evidence (can’t recall where now but possibly here) that the impact of reps. is in decline for many of the reasons specified already. There was at one point a breakdown of oral hearings showing success rate with no appellant; only the appellant; appellant with another person; appellant with rep. Steady incline as you might expect but the big leap was “another person” rather than rep. and it was posited that this was as you say because of the benefits of hand-holding.
Mike, the stats from HMCTS attached to my original post included that breakdown - that’s why I requested them and have done so each year since they stopped being included in HMCTS’s quarterly stats. from when the Tribunal Service was abolished. The figure of 70% for DLA and IB & now ESA in the official stats for cases where a rep is recorded have been consistent over many years (as has the total figure for all benefits). Some things in the benefits system don’t change! Given the 100% size of HMCTS sample it must be a statistically valid figure. How one interprest the figures is of course another question.
I agree stats for representation by an organisation are no more than an indication. However the size of the sample is also relevant. If a rep / organisation claims a 100% success for representation but only rep a dozen cases a year that is clearly not statistically valid. However they may be more statistically valid if the number of cases represented each year is in the hundreds.
I would suggest that if an organisation that reps frequently only achieves a low success rate [insert your preferred % here] then they are doing something wrong - don’t understand the qualifying rules and advise a claimants that their case has merit when it may not / tell them about your worst days etc. etc. (our local tribunal will adjourn cases where they don’t feel an organisation is providing competent representation - and recommend the claimant comes to us).
[ Edited: 25 Oct 2013 at 09:42 am by Peter Turville ]Ageed ... but
The figures of 70% success where a rep is recorded by HMCTS has been consistent over many years - having someone with a claimant obviously makes some difference (even if they are a relative and in practice simply provide additional oral evidence or increase the claimant’s ability to give their own oral evidence by their mere presence as a ‘handholder’).
And many advice etc. organisations who represent (like ourselves) consitently report success rates (at least for DLA/ESA) at around 90%. I would assume the difference a rep from an organisation makes in most cases is to gather relevant evidence and ensure it is before the tribunal in an appropriate way, rather than the ‘arguments’ they make for the claimant during the hearing itself.
It has always been a matter of debate whether a rep. attending the hearing makes much difference on the day rather than the preparatory work they do beforehand. I guess only tribunals can answer that question.
I’m not so sure that figure is consistent. It has been broken down more in recent years and varies considerably between benefits. There has also been recent evidence (can’t recall where now but possibly here) that the impact of reps. is in decline for many of the reasons specified already. There was at one point a breakdown of oral hearings showing success rate with no appellant; only the appellant; appellant with another person; appellant with rep. Steady incline as you might expect but the big leap was “another person” rather than rep. and it was posited that this was as you say because of the benefits of hand-holding.
Mike, the stats from HMCTS attached to my original post included that breakdown - that’s why I requested them and have done so each year since they stopped being included in HMCTS’s quarterly stats. from when the Tribunal Service was abolished. The figure of 70% for DLA and IB & now ESA in the official stats for cases where a rep is recorded have been consistent over many years (as has the total figure for all benefits). Some things in the benefits system don’t change! Given the 100% size of HMCTS sample it must be a statistically valid figure. How one interprest the figures is of course another question.
I agree stats for representation by an organisation are no more than an indication. However the size of the sample is also relevant. If a rep / organisation claims a 100% success for representation but only rep a dozen cases a year that is clearly not statistically valid. However they may be more statistically valid if the number of cases represented each year is in the hundreds.
I would suggest that if an organisation that reps frequently only achieves a low success rate [insert your preferred % here] then they are doing something wrong - don’t understand the qualifying rules and advise a claimants that their case has merit when it may not / tell them about your worst days etc. etc. (our local tribunal will adjourn cases where they don’t feel an organisation is providing competent representation - and recommend the claimant comes to us).
I have been a rep in a few different venues in Scotland and I would say a huge variable is where you happen to represent.
One venue in particular was very tough to get a decision from. Other venues have had more understanding judges sit more regularly and that meant more positive decisions.
I am also wary of really focusing on win rates as a mark of quality as that can lead to organisations only taking the stronger cases.
I would regularly take cases I felt were probably going to lose but on the right day with the right panel they could get an award. as long as you manage the clients expectations and the case has at least some merit then its worth a shot.
If you don’t cherry pick, don’t take on cases that have very little or no merit but take on cases that are clearly arguable and you win more than you lose then you are probably very good at your job and are providing a decent service. Lengthy winning steaks are a complete irrelevance in the field of good advice work.