I've recently complained about the conduct of the Chair on a Tribunal in which i acted as rep.

The actual outcome of the appeal was a success for our client so we do not wish to appeal further.

I've received a letter from TAS which states:

".......tribunal members are, like judges, independent. They are not directly accountable to the President of the Appeals Tribunals, or to any Government Department. Their decisions and the way they conduct hearings can only be publicly questioned through the appeal process which, in the case of our tribunals, means by way of appeal to the Commissioners for Social Security. It is for you to decide whether you wish to appeal."

I'm a bit surprised by this response, it implies that even if the chair decides to do a strip tease we can't raise an objection?!

Anyone got any comments/suggestions? Anything would be gratefully received.

There is a previous thread relating to the conduct of Chairs, but unfortunately, I can't track it down at this time.

Based on actual experience (on the LA side for HB/CTB), I strongly suspect that your complaint will be taken a bit more seriously than suggested by the response.

In my case, I made comments about a Tribunal Chair which resulted in a VERY strong letter from the Regional Chair to the LA, demanding an apology and even aluding to legal action (against both the LA and me personally) for defamation.

However, some months later, the same Chair heard another case involving that same LA (I wasn't there) and by all accounts the Chair's conduct was impeccable.

Having also heard anecdotes from others, it seems that there is significant "behind-the-scenes" action to retrain / deal with Chairs who may be falling short of the required conduct.

In summary, I wouldn't necessarily assume your complaint has had no effect.

Regards

Thanks for that Kevin - gives me a little hope!

They are wrong. Complaints about the conduct of tribunal members should be in writing and sent to the regional chair. The regional chair will then record the complaint and send a copy of the letter to the tribunal member involved for a response. The RC may also refer the matter to the district chair of the relevant district if s/he thinks it is warranted.

Sufficiently serious matters, such as allegations of racism, may be passed on to the president of TAS. Complaints about the conduct of regional chairs go to the Lord Chancellor. The Social Security Commissioners have no jurisdiction here. You may need to remind them to check TAS President's Protocols where they will find the above procedures laid out.

Regards
Paul

The following links are to previous discussion forum threads on this subject -

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=106&topic_id=1376&mesg_id=1376&listing_type=search

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=106&topic_id=905&mesg_id=905&listing_type=search

Thanks all.

Nev: I wrote to the regional chair - the quote in my original post above is taken from the letter from him in reply.

I'll take your advice and write and point out the procudures as quoted.

Thanks again.

Sorry, I should have said....complaints about regional chairs go to the president and complaints about the president go to the Lord Chancellor. Here is the protocol.

COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE CONDUCT OF PANEL MEMBERS
1. Tribunals do their best to strike the right balance between informality and
authority. Informality is necessary to put the parties at their ease and to enable
them to present their case in the best possible light. Authority is necessary to
ensure that the hearing is conducted efficiently and with dignity and that when
the parties leave the tribunal room they respect and understand the decision
even if they do not agree with it.

2. No two tribunals operate in precisely the same way and there will be a
considerable and acceptable variation in the way in which individual tribunals
achieve that balance. Provided a tribunal operates within those limits it would
not be right and would infringe judicial independence to censure it.

3. Tribunals often have to decide issues of credibility; to do that they may need to
ask probing questions. Sometimes they must inquire into personal and intimate
matters. However sensitively those matters are carried out some discomfort
and embarrassment is always possible.

4. Regrettably, tribunals occasionally stray outside acceptable limits. There is
never an excuse for rude, discourteous, aggressive or insensitive behaviour.
Nor should a tribunal ever act in a way which is biased or prejudiced or gives
the impression of bias or prejudice. When the conduct of a tribunal or the
personal behaviour of a member falls below the standards we set ourselves we
need to know about it.

5. Because we take seriously complaints about the conduct of tribunal members
we need to have the complaint in writing. However, we will make special
arrangements for anyone who cannot write down a complaint, for example
because of language difficulties or disability. All complaints must include
specific details of the grounds for complaint. For example, telling us that the
tribunal was prejudiced or rude is almost impossible to investigate unless we
are told in what way the tribunal was prejudiced or rude. It is also easier to
investigate a complaint if we are told about it as soon as possible after the
hearing. Otherwise it becomes difficult for those who may be able to throw
light on the complaint to remember what occurred.

6. Complaints should be addressed to the Regional Chairman of the region where
the appeal was heard - if they are addressed to someone else they will be
redirected to the Regional Chairman. It is his job to investigate the complaint.
If a complaint is made about the conduct of a Regional Chairman it should be
addressed to the President; if about the conduct of the President then to the
Lord Chancellor.

7. Some complaints are not about the conduct of the tribunal at all. Instead they
relate to the decision that was made, or the questions that were asked or not
asked or the documents that were taken into consideration or not taken into
consideration, or the weight attached by the tribunal to particular parts of the
evidence. Those are matters that can only be considered by way of appeal to
the Commissioners. If complaints fall into this category we will respond to
them in the above terms.

8. Some complaints are in reality applications to set aside for procedural error or
applications seeking leave to appeal to the Commissioners. In those cases we
shall treat the complaint as an application to set aside or seek leave as
appropriate and act accordingly.

9. If the complaint relates to the conduct of the tribunal or the personal behaviour
of a member then the Regional Chairman (or Customer Services Manager
acting with the Regional Chairman’s consent) will acknowledge it within 5
working days of receipt. We will assume that submission of a complaint
implies consent to disclose it to the person being complained about and to
others within the organisation who may be able to throw light on what
occurred. However, before beginning an investigation, the Regional Chairman
will need to know whether the complainant intends to appeal the Tribunal
decision and will seek that information when acknowledging the complaint.

10. It is not possible for the Regional Chairman to investigate cases where the
complainant states that the subject matter is confidential and should not be
disclosed to the individual against whom the complaint is made. If there is to
be an appeal the Regional Chairman will start his enquiry straightaway but,
unless the appeal raises issues quite different from the subject matter of the
complaint, will not issue a final reply until the appeal is finally concluded.

11. Subject to the above matters the Regional Chairman will send the letter of
complaint to the tribunal member(s) and, where it is thought that he or she may
usefully comment, to the District Chairman from whose District the complaint
comes seeking their comments on the complaint. The Regional Chairman will
also consider other relevant information. At the conclusion of the investigation
he will respond in writing to the complaint: if he concludes that there is
substance in the complaint, either in whole or in part, he will say so; if he
concludes that the complaint has no substance he will also say so. Sometimes
the Regional Chairman will be left with the word of the complainant and the
denials of the tribunal member(s) with no material upon which he can properly
reach a conclusion. He will say whether or not he is in that position. If the
Regional Chairman concludes that there is substance in the complaint he will
decide what action should be taken to obviate a repetition of the conduct. The
member(s) against whom the complaint was made will be copied into the
Regional Chairman’s conclusions as will the District Chairman. But whatever
the outcome, all the papers relating to the complaint will be held on file. It will
remain material which may well be relevant should there be a subsequent
complaint of a similar nature.

12. If, at any time during the investigation, the Regional Chairman considers that
the complaint has substance and might amount to serious misconduct or
incompetence, or might amount to racist or discriminatory conduct, or that the
complaint judged against other material on the file gives cause for serious
concern, then the complaint and file will immediately be referred to the
President who in turn will, if appropriate, refer the complaint and the file to the
Lord Chancellor.

HIS HONOUR JUDGE MICHAEL HARRIS
PRESIDENT, THE APPEALS SERVICE
August 2003

Thanks Paul - Do you know where i could find a copy of the protocol that i could download?

Regards

Nicky

Hi Nicky

Go to The Appeals Service website (through the links page of this site), click on publications, then click on protocols.

Regards
Paul

Thanks for that.

Here is the direct link to the protocol for complaints against the conduct of panel members -


http://www.appeals-service.gov.uk/publications/pdf/protocols/protocol%202.pdf

In February 2005 I represented a client in relation to a DLA appeal regarding a renewal claim where no award was made. The decision of the tribunal was to ratify the DM'a decision. I requested a Statement of Reasons and that arrived at the end of April 2005.

In that Statement of Reasons the Chair explained that part of the reason for not making an award was because:
1) I was representing the client in the appeal
2) I was dishonest and coached my clients to tell lies
3) she had apparently been informed at an earlier appeal by a client that I had encouraged an exageration of the truth

She then went on to describe how she told the lay members of the experience.

When I received the Statement I was in complete shock and can honestly state that even now there is not a day that passes that I do not think about this.

A complaint was made both by myself and through my employer to the Regional Chair who quoted the Protocol back (after we had found them) stating that he could do nothing until the matter had been heard by Commissioners. Copies of letters were also sent to the President of TAS in London.

The Chair was asked about the case that it was alleged that I had encoraged a client to lie in (and indeed for a copy of Statement that it was indicated that had been drafted on that occassion) but no details were provided except the belief that it was about '18 months ago'.

The same Chair also refused leave to appeal to Commissioners!!

In the meantime my employer conducted a detailed check of my cases, as the thought was that the matter should be treated as a complaint, and they were all found to be absolutely fine.

Eventually the Commissioner concerned directed a re-hearing at which benefit was awarded.

When the Regional Chair was then asked to investigate the case fully, along with: a) the possible impact it may have had to previous cases in the intervening period b) what had been said to the lay members (and indeed other Appeals Service personnel) c) the impact on my and my employers future cases .... he refused to do so!!

An unconvincing unreserved apology was sent by the Regional Chair but he refused any further action.

The President was again asked to intervene but refused.

We are now well over a year on and the matter is now before the Parliamentary Ombudsman as referred by the local MP.

I am still extremely hurt about what has happened and the refusal from the Appeals Service to investigate a serious complaint. To read the comment about the threat of Defamation Action by the Appeals Service is disgusting because any rep in my situation is not allowed to take such action due to 'privelege'.

The bottom line is that Appeal Chairs do not seem to have open accountability for their actions and this needs to be changed.

My local MP has now received a second complaint and is now looking to take action about the situation. If anybody wants further information then please contact me.

Fascinating stuff. Got to say from the HB / LA point of view that I find the Tribunal Service to think itself very important. In one recent case, the Chair took five months to make a decision (three lines) from the date of the Tribunal hearing. Response from Regional chair loooking into the complaint (naturally after three months) was that it was "complex" - yes, that was why we suggested it be heard by a FT Chair. No suggestion that the complaint can be referred to a higher independent party.

Say what you want about LA's but the Local Government Ombudsman is hot stuff on delays and poor complaint handling. Chairs are just so variable - some are helpful, friendly and fair. Others are appalling; rude I can cope with but if worse still, they don't even know their subject ... GRRRRRR.