I would be grateful for some advice on whether it is worth/a good idea to make a complaint about a Chair who acted inappropriatley at an appeal hearing. I did not know whether it would cause a problem for future appeals if a complaint was made.

Can you say a bit more about in which way he/she acted inappropriately?

The Chair person decided to rant at me for a period of time during the tribunal for not getting my client a occupational therapist and when I stated that I was a benefit adviser and the client had a support worker who could arrange that I was told that I was making excuses!

She also made a medical diagnosis!, saying that my client clearly had psoriasis and not caluses on his knees, (despite the fact she is not medically qualified and the tribunal cannot do a medical examination) and would not let me speak when I tried to explain that the client had the same condition on both knees. This was a crucial point in our case for the client being virtually unable to walk.

She was rude throughout the tribunal. There is also possible grounds for taking the case to commissioners over her arguements about the client being able to use a perching stool and other equipment in the kitchen in order to cook.

I have wanted to complain about Panel Members myself, but as I mainly work for LA's, I haven’t, (as the LA usually doesn't want to 'rock the boat' - which I personally think is a misguided way of dealing with arrogant Chairs, but there you go...)

Aside for the obvious Article 6 Considerations that you might have for your client, (right to 'fair hearing' which includes your right to be heard, and be respected by the Tribunal, as the appellants representative - see para 10 of CDLA/2462/03 - "So, the claimant was entitled to give evidence. She was also entitled to be represented. Her representative had the same rights and powers as she had. That included the right to be heard. And that triggered the right to give evidence"...

You might also want to Consider "Presidents Protocol No. 2 - Complaints Against The Conduct Of Panel Members"...

You can find it at:

http://www.appeals-service.gov.uk/559.htm

Thu 10-Mar-05 09:40 AM by ken

Also see CIB/2058/2004 which contains a neat analysis of the role of a representative.

Bitter personal experience seemingly shared by other representatives in previous (including quite recent) posts along these lines seems to indicate that formal complaints about the conduct of the judiciary achieve very little.

If you read CIB/2058/2004 perhaps you could ponder for a while whether a decision like that, as a result of a dignified and carefully worded application for leave and then notice of appeal arguing your points on scrupulous legalistic grounds, leaving all trace of personality and animosity aside, would actually be a result in far more acidic terms in relation to criticism of the chair involved, than a formal complaint combined with an offloading screed about how it just ain't fair being a rep in front of such poor judiciary, and would actually be much more personally satisfying.

Personally, I would never be able to resist the temptation to vent my spleen...

I had cause to lodge a formal complaint against a tribunal chair a number of years back, due to inappropriate comments that he made during a DLA appeal ("Why should we give this man anymore money? We might as well go and throw the money down a hole in the road" being one of the offending remarks). Publicly, it seemed to achieve very little in that the response I recieved from the District Chair stated that the chair in question denied making any such remarks, always trys to act sympathetically towards appellants, etc etc.

I became extremely worried about what would now happen if I came before the offending chair again but he seemed to disappear from the tribunal listings and the next thing i heard was that he had been retired. So maybe privately, more action took place than would, or could, be acknowledged publicly. I've heard from a source subsequently that complaints are taken seriously by TAS and can help to confirm suspicions of inappropriate or improper behaviour by tribunal members, even though again in public, they would be reluctant to air those difficulties.

I think you need to carefully unpick the reasons why you disagree with any decision the tribunal have made and your reasons for challenging that, and the reasons why you are unhappy with the conduct of the chair. Of course there may be some overlay between the two but if you make a complaint about the chair, you should try to ensure that it is not percieved in any way to be simply sour grapes at what you think is the wrong decision being made.

For example, if the chair has breached some aspect of the legislation by making a medical diagnosis in the way that you describe it, this can form part of a challenge to the Commissioners. Whereas some of the rudeness that you describe and attacking you for failing to provide services for a client when that is not your responsibility could be the subject of a complaint about the conduct of the chair.

Good luck in whatever course of action you decide to take.

This earlier, but quite recent, thread might be of interest...

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=106&topic_id=745&mesg_id=745&page=

Regards

Consider the following:-

a) A Rep's job is to represent clients best interests ,allowing a chair too get away with this is not in your future clients best interests.

b) A single complaint will not get any action , but if others have complained then eventually a pattern will emerge and action will occur in the long run. This appllies to EMP's also.It also puts the chair on notice you will not put up with such behaviour.

c) If you are confident enough you have the right to ask the chair too record your complaint at the hearing . If they refuse you can ask the clerk too do so.Please note this is not a good option if you are not experienced.

d) Most bullies back down when challenged.This is not always true in the playground but often works in a legal process. I remember a panel Doctor once stating my accussations against an Emp were scandalous, and if the Doctor had been at her practice they would sue me for my comments. I simply replied in this case I would relish the opportunity to challenge the EMp directly with the EMP under oath. She immediately backed off and appeal succeeded.Though I appreciate experience/confidence play a major part in such actions.

f)SS&CS(D&A)49(1) do give the chairman etc the authority to determine how the proceeding of a hearing is run, but clearly " Subject to the following provisions of this part,....." i.e. they must run the hearing inline with this rest of S49. So sometimes you may not get to speak exactly when you want so you may have to be patient. But any breach of s49 should win a commissioners appeal.

Hope this helps

It has always struck me that tribunals do not appaer to subject to any quality control standards - do clients ever get consulted about how the tribunal and TAS dealt with their case? Are decisions subject to any quality review by Regional Chairs? Do Chairs sit in on each others cases? When was a rep asked to provide any feedback? What happens to those clients who are not represented?

In a previous job, local advice agencies and local MP combined to complain about a chair - outcome - nothing - except that reps were left feeling that they had prejudiced their clients chances of sucess at future hearings.

I remember A GP on TV once saying that in ten years of practice no-one had looked into whether he was doing a decent job or not.

I think that DCs must look at results and they look at statements of reasons when assessing applications for leave to appeal. they must also look at numbers of requests for statements.

I just think you'll never know what ever happens, if anything.

My understanding is that Chairs can't be sacked other than by some horribly complex process involving the High Court or something. Something to do with independence of the judiciary. The flip side of the argument is that no government can get rid of a Chair who inconveniently allows large numbers of appeals or is nice to people...

Our local DC has said that all Chairs do get copies of Comissioners Decisions in cases they have been involved with as a form of feedback.

As I think the previous discussion above concluded a lot of things seem to go on behind closed doors. So while you might get a response saying not done anything wrong etc, if a lot of similar complaints are received someone will have a quiet word and suddenly you find that you don't see that particular Chair any more.

I have to say that I don't feel we have an issue with 'problem chairs' locally and I'm not just saying that because I know some of them read Rightsnet. Maybe one or two who are a bit strict occasionally, or the occasional touch of the idiosyncratic!

Got a full statement today where the chair has written under the heading: Reasons for Decision:

"It is noted that the request for this statement has come from the appellants representatives Barrow CAB who failed to attend the hearing. Had they troubled to attend, they would have heard the appellants evidence and would know why the appellants appeal has failed. It is resented by the chairman and unacceptable for representatives to use the request for full statment as a way of finding out what happended at a hearing rather than attending the hearing."

I have complained to everyone i can think of! Do you think this chair actually understands and knows exactly what a full statement is for?!!! Fuming!!

Bensup,

Thats shocking! The reasons for requesting a written statement are irrelvant given the staturoty right to a statement. This makes me hot under the collar just thinking about it!

From an earlier thread (link to that thread is in my previous post to this thread).

www.appeals-service.gov.uk/559.htm

Although, if the Chair has actually managed to set out reasons that are proper and relevant to the case in addition to his/her other "observations", it may prove difficult to get the decision set aside.

Regards

I have no intention to try and set the decision aside - the client has said he agrees the statement is a true record and i had to gently point out to him that he has completely contradicted what he told me and given direct evidence for himself that make it obvious he does not qualify for DLA!!

Was just the totally uneccessary comment by a very arrogant chair that made my blood boil!