APPENDIX 3
Memorandum submitted by Lancashire County
Council Welfare Rights and Social Inclusion Services (AP 7)
Lancashire County Council Welfare Rights Service
was established in 1987 and exists to serve the 1.1 million residents
of Lancashire. Our purpose is to ensure that all those who need
advice and help to obtain Social Security and local authority
benefits to which they are entitled are able to get it. We have
a centralised benefit take-up team as well as six local offices,
and 24 satellite outposts, distributed around the County to achieve
this aim. We have extensive benefit casework experience, with
annually approximately 60,000 advice transactions and we provide
help with over 2,000 Social Security appeals. It is with this
background that we welcome the opportunity to contribute to the
short inquiry into the impending reorganisation of Social Security
appeals.
Whilst we welcome some of the improvements that
are planned for the future administration of Social Security appeals,
especially those relating to the speeding up of the process for
appellants, we do have concerns about some current practices which
if allowed to continue will undermine the Government's objective
to improve customer service. Just focusing on delivery of a "simpler,
faster system for the administration and progressing of appeals"
(to quote a recent DMA leaflet) is not enough. Appellants must
believe that the system is fair.
1. We have already experienced one real
difference with the division of the administration of appeals
between the Benefits Agency and the Independent Tribunal Service.
Under new arrangements in place since April, local Benefits Agency
offices have taken over the photocopying and distribution of appeal
documents. Offices in Lancashire are only making one copy of these
documents available, even in cases where the appellant has a named
representative. As previously stated, we currently represent and
assist over 2,000 appellants a year. Sharing one set of documents
in predominately evidential appeals is unfair to the appellant
because, in the interests of justice, they need to be able to
see the basis of the decision appealed against (and the evidence
that has been used to support that decision). We, as representatives,
also have a need to see the documents in order to help the appellant
prepare their case.
It is fairer to have both the appellant and
the representative working together in the preparation of an appeal,
with a set of appeal documents each. For example, only the appellant
can really identify whether there are inaccuracies in the Benefits
Agency's evidence or medical reports. Prior to the April changes,
the Independent Tribunal Service accepted this and sent a copy
of appeal documents to all parties to the appeal, including any
named representative. We, like other agencies offering appeal
representation, do not have the resources to photocopy over 2,000
sets of appeal documents a year (some of which can be over 100
pages long). This issue is central to the effective administration
of appeals. Good administration, in our experience, underpins
the fairness or otherwise of the appeals system. An effective
appeals system also needs to ensure that appellants are not disadvantaged.
2. Liaison regarding appeal hearing dates
is another major area of concern for our Service. Regulations
allow all parties to an appeal, including the appellant's representative,
to be heard at an oral hearing. However, the current administration
system can deny the appellant their right to attend with the representative
of their choice. For example, if notifications have already been
issued advising that a Welfare Rights Officer is not available
for appeal representation on a certain dates and this has been
ignored, some of our customers have felt unfairly treated when
they have had to go ahead with the appeal without representation.
Our Tribunal Service Regional Office do not normally postpone
an appeal hearing if a representative is not available. When we
did have a liaison agreement, it was to the benefit of all concernednot
just the appellant. For example, some Tribunal Chairs have also
expressed the view, mainly in cases involving legal technicalities,
that the interests of justice would be best served if the appellant
attended with an experienced representativeand have adjourned
the hearing, directing that this be the case. Written submissions,
although helpful, cannot cover the unexpectedie new information
that arises during the course of the hearing. Adjournments in
certain of our cases could, we feel, have been avoided if liaison
arrangements had continued.
3. Another problem we have experienced during
our involvement with the Independent Tribunal Service concerns
the actual time allocated for the hearing of an appeal. For example,
Disability Living Allowance appeals can be allocated the same
amount of time (in a lot of cases, half an hour) to hear a case
regarding one Component of this benefit as an appeal relating
to two components. Attention, therefore, needs to be given to
more realistic timings to prevent the adjournment of appeal hearings
through lack of time. Not only would this be fairer to the appellant,
especially to people with ill health or disability or caring responsibilities,
but it can only reduce the additional costs involved in a re-hearing
(both in terms of time and money) .
4. The lack of a systematic approach regarding
the receipt, and processing, of additional evidence/correspondence
sent in by the appellant (or their representative) after the appeal
documents have been prepared has also been a cause for concern
for our advisers. Again, this has caused problems at an appeal
hearing when this evidence/correspondence has not been available
and an adjournment has had to be madeor the start of the
hearing delayed because copies have only been made available on
the day. In these latter cases, these have often tended to be
supplied by our staff who have had the foresight (in light of
previous experience) to take additional copies of the "missing"
paperwork to the hearing. Would it be too onerous to have a system,
similar to the one operating in all our offices, whereby correspondence
can be logged in as received and processed accordingly? We can,
unfortunately, give many examples of cases involving "lost"
papers/correspondence at the Independent Tribunal Service (pre
and post appeal) and the amount of staff hours required by both
ourselves, the customer, and/or the clerks to try and remedy any
problems that have occurred as a result. With the new shorter
time limits for appeal, it is very likely additional evidence
in support of an appeal application will not be obtainable until
after the submission etc has been forwarded to The Appeals Service.
Improvements in this area can only be to the benefit of all parties.
5. Since more power is being given to tribunal
chairs, more attention should also be given to the monitoring
of their work. This monitoring should encompass the effective
running of the appeal hearing, as well as the quality of the decision
making.
6. This monitoring also needs to be extended
to cover tribunal clerks. Under powers introduced in the new Social
Security (Decision Making and Appeals) Regulations, clerks are
being allocated quasi-judicial duties. For example, they are allowed
to strike out an appeal in certain circumstances without referral
to a legally qualified tribunal panel member.
7. Whilst the appeal decision making monitoring
systems may safeguard appellants from poor decisions, an open
complaints procedure to cover administrative problems would certainly
support the intention of improving customer service. We, like
most public service organisations these days, have a complaints
procedure in place to the benefit and protection of all customers
and staff. For people to believe customer service has been taken
seriously by an organisation, the way it deals with situations
where something goes wrong (for example) must be published and
made available to all its clients.
8. We understand that tribunal members already
receive training. We presume this training, in addition to technical
issues, will include/continue to include awareness of disability
and issues relating to ethnicityespecially with the abolition
of "lay members".
Paul Burgess
Head of Service
7 June 1999
|