APPENDIX 1
Memorandum submitted by Suffolk County
Council (AP 2)
This short Memorandum of Evidence is submitted
to this Committee to assist its enquiry into the new social security
appeal system.
Social Services Departments deliver a range
of services to some of the poorest and most socially excluded
people in our community. Both the range and adequacy of social
security benefits as well as effective benefits administration
are important elements in ensuring that social care and health
services to such people are not undermined.
Because of this, social workers and other staff
employed by Social Services Departments often act as advocates
for their customers to ensure they receive the correct benefit
entitlement. Many Social Services Departments also have Welfare
Rights Units to assist with this. In Suffolk the Welfare Rights
Unit is a second tier, strategic service which helps social workers
to respond adequately to social security problems through training,
consultation and policy work. The Unit also undertakes benefit
take up initiatives and represents approximately 80 claimants
each year before Social Security Tribunals.
We hope that the following points will assist
the Committee in its enquiry.
1. We have considerable concerns about the
new timescales for appeals. For people whose lives are complicated
and stressed, the one month time limit (particularly when the
decision has been notified by second class post), and the difficulties
in obtaining independent welfare rights advice mean that a longer
time limit should be considered.
2. The difficulty with time limits is severely
compounded by the absurdly tight rules for admitting a late appeal.
It would be interesting to know the numbers of late appeals which
have been admitted within the last year.
3. We are also concerned about the timescales
for revisions of decisions. Effectively, these can amount to a
licence for poor administration by the Benefits Agency because
of the difficulty many claimants face in finding high quality
advice to uncover official errors—some of which go back
a long time and involve a substantial amount of money.
4. A further concern on timescales is the
14 day time limit for claimants when Tribunals wish to strike
out appeals.
5. A constant problem has been the standard
of medical reports enclosed with Tribunal papers. Often, these
are illegible and do not contain a summary of the critical facts.
This effectively acts as a barrier to justice.
6. We are concerned about a Circular issued
by the Benefits Agency in February instructing their staff to
only issue one copy of appeal papers. In those cases where there
is no representative, the papers are sent to the claimant. Where
there is a representative, he/she receives the papers. This puts
an additional burden on organisations involved in representation
(which are often small, under-funded voluntary organisations)
in copying the papers for claimants. This change also appears
to have been introduced without proper consultation with representatives.
7. A long-standing problem is the administrative
chaos within the Independent Tribunal Service. Until about three
years ago the ITS appeared to be a well-managed and flexible organisation.
However, things deteriorated and one is left with the impression
that the service is in a chronic shambles possibly because of
under-resourcing. This is exemplified by the unacceptable delays
for Tribunal hearings and continual problems with lost files and
correspondence. These delays effectively amount to a denial of
justice for people who are often in very difficult circumstances.
These defeat the objective of Tribunals where time should be of
the essence. Clearly, there appears to be an imbalance in that
claimants are now faced with strict timescales for submitting
appeals and revision requests whereas the Secretary of State is
under no statutory obligation to process appeals within any timescale
let alone a short one.
8. We are also concerned about the very
limited training that appears to have been given to most Benefits
Agency staff about the new arrangements for appeals.
9. As part of its financial difficulties,
the Independent Tribunal Service has closed many local Tribunal
venues. For example, in this area we lost the Tribunal suite in
Bury St Edmunds about two years ago. This is an additional burden
for claimants and again amounts to a further imposition in terms
of travel time and cost for advice agencies. The Committee may
wish to explore the possibility of recommending changes in the
law to ensure that reasonably local access to Tribunals is maintained.
We hope that these comments will assist the
Committee in its deliberations.
May 1999
| 
