I requested figures of appeals made / lapsed / subs issued to TAS by our LA in the last 3 years (under the FOI) and got the staggering result of FOUR appeals in that time having been sent to TAS (they haven't kept results of the other things but promise they will from now on). I was involved with two of those appeals.

I think they are using 'explanations' as a (non-statutory) reason to lapse appeals. I may be wrong. But I just can't believe that every appeal except four made has been revised in claimant's favour or withdrawn in writing.

Has anyone else asked for these figures or already knows them??

Andrew,

I don't have the need to ask for such figures, but this anecdotal experience probably won't be a surprise.

In my experience of working with/at LAs, there are two schools of thought.

One is to conscientiously log and deal with every appeal properly (barring genuine errors).

The other is to do whatever is necessary to either get the clmt to "withdraw" the appeal, or treat it as a reconsideration (even when it is quite clear it should go to TAS), or to issue a statement of reasons and hope the time lapses. Further, I have known LAs to deal with out-of-time / out-of-jurisdiction / not-duly-made appeals internally without those cases ever going to TAS. Without the knowledge, most claimants in such cases are simply not aware that the LA has acted ultra-vires.

One notable aside. Based on my experience, many of the LAs that deal with appeals "properly" have significant backlogs and scant resources. Accordingly, stats make it seem that those LAs are rubbish. Those LA's that take the "get-rid" approach have (on the whole) great stats and look fantastic.

I know which of the above LAs I regard as being rubbish......

Regards

Thanks Kevin it's not a surpise but that doesn't stop it being a disgrace does it?!

In my specific case the LA took guidance from the DWP, took six months to do so, and then issued a letter, the last two sentences of which are "Our decision remains the same and benefit will not be payable. If for any reason you do not agree with this decision you must contact the office in writing within one month from the date of this letter." Which would be fine if the initial request was a revision request, but I'm sure it was an appeal (frustratingly client did not bring in a copy).

When I do get the sub on this if she did appeal I'm going to complain to the Ombudsman just on the wording of the letter and the paucity of appeals made and request an investigation. There must be a better example but I know I'm not going to find one now myself (although this is ripe for social policuy work) as they'll do them right with me from now on you can be almost sure.

I totally agree with you about which LA is the rubbish one. The problem is that unless LAs show they are under resourced they will never get the increases they need to deal with this matter properly, and whilst LAs hide it all away there's always going to be someone to say 'You shouldn't get the money because the LA next door clear all their appeals with one person working one day a week.'

I do hope other people can take this matter up. It's so hard to overcome inertia when dealing with LAs on this subject taking months to do anything after a challenge has been made and then still not doing it right.

Agreed - it is a disgrace.

Rant follows.....

As for changing the ethos, I don't see it happening under the current approach where stats are the be all and end all. And, so long as agenda-driven jobsworths are in positions where the level of incompetence and/or lack of proper understanding of what is actually NEEDED in administering HB/CTB is all too prevalent, there will be no change. It seems, like it or not, quantity is the sole measure of "quality" and all too many ppl are simply incapable (or unwilling?) of understanding the difference between the two.

By the way, having been in HB/CTB since 1984 (bar a 3 yr break), I've seen governments of both colours at work. Conclusion: they're both rubbish when it comes to sorting out the benefits system.

Another anecdote to depress you even further....

I wish you better luck than I had with finding a channel to get have an LA investigated. This was a few years ago where an LA openly stated they didn't comply with the law in many areas of HB/CTB admin (in cases where entitlement often substantially affected). I pointed out that as they were asking me to knowingly failing to comply with HB/CTB Regs, it was not a reasonable request. I was fired.

I could find no one at all who was remotely interested, even though there was incontravertable evidence. It did cross my mind to go to the press but, as anyone with even a modicum of understanding how the press (usually) works knows, its striking a deal with a very unpredictable devil.

Regards

Kevin I could get all CABish and talk about unfair dismissal here but I guess that misses the point by a hundred miles.

I completely agree with you regarding the press. As a story it has a number of potentially juicy angles for a journalist, but the examples you'd find who are being affected are not really in groups media-friendly enough for any kind of fully supportive treatment are they?

I'm going to pursue my individual case with the Ombudsman though.

I really appreciate your input, but has anyone else ever asked their LA about this stuff, and if not, like me, has anyone had such a dearth of hearings with LAs that it would seem your LA is the same as mine in terms of numbers proceeding?

I'd welcome contributions sent to me by email (I think you can send a message by clicking on my name on the left of this post) if anyone does not want these things fully aired - I just want to get an idea of who's doing what different to my own LA.

I promise to deal with all such things in the strictest confidence.

We have similar problems yet when the L.A. Ombudsman become involved things what have gone unresolved for months are dealt with ,within weeks. Don't forget you can now complain direct to Ombudsman without following the LAs complaints process.

Which is half the problem - I know I can move mine along but what about the rest?

andrew

i have had only 2 HB appeals go to the tribunal since whenever it started - all the rest (i've lost count) have been revised.

Thanks jj - we've got the same score!

Our experience is very different. When HB appeals first started to go to TAS there were very long delays in HB preparing the papers, but they've improved dramatically and are now producing most papers within about 3 months and sometimes much quicker. I'd say they probably revise about the same proportion of decisions under appeal as DWP. I've been to 9 HB appeal hearings this year already. My colleagues have done others and so have other WR agencies.

Sorry didn't quite appreciate the scoring in my last reply the number of appeals is about 6, the the rest are reviewed in clients favour, or quite often surprisingly in many o/p cases they feel the decision was right but wrote off the o/p in lieu of the delay in dealing with the appeal, often over 12 months delay.