Has anyone any comments? We cannot always go to trubunals with clients, because of lack of time. The last 2 who have been on their own report back that they have been told they should have a rep.

We have the same problem, it's just not physically possible to actually rep at all the cases we'd like to, especially as we cannot claim any time for representation for our legal services contract.

We used to get clients telling us that the Tribunal's were intimating that we'd not done our job properly as we hadn't attended but this hasn't happened for a long time.

I once spoke to one of our regular Chairs about this and explained why we couldn't always rep, he seemed genuinely surprised at our reasons and said he wasn't aware we couldn't claim for the time under LSC contracts.

If your particular Tribunal's insist you rep then your local TAS office need to liaise with you when booking dates for hearing's don't they?!

I have to say that I do not put actual rep attendance as being the most important factor in successful appeals.

Preparation is all important.

If you have the resources to do a well researched submission (including as many points of law and CD's as you can find to be relevant)together with good medical evidence in disability related cases AND you carefully prepare your client - to give the "right" answers and not to put their foot in it, the chances of winning are very good whether the rep is there or not.

Mind you there are some tribunals when argument on the day is needed - if the chair is awkward, but it's not very often.

The best reason for going to the hearing is that client's need someone to support them.

We've recently cut down the number of cases we rep in, and are doing written submissions instead. LSC will pay for us to draft submissions, but not to turn up to hearings.

The first of my cases where I didn't go along was actually a case where the tribunal had referred the case to us as needing representation. I was a little concerned that they might not be happy when we didn't show up, but everything went smoothly and the client won. We did get some fairly good medical evidence.

I don't see that the tribunal can insist on us repping. Even if they could, there's a much bigger issue about the benefit authorities not coming to hearings.

Everything south of the border now seems to involve (CLS & LSC) money?

Does England not have any volunteers who actually care and represent freely?

Mine is not an LSC contract. I go to tribunals when I can. We always of course get as much supporting ev. as poss, prepare a sub as well and brief the client on what to expect. It is very unsettling for them to be told right at the beginning of the tribunal that they should have brought a rep. One of them -did- take partner as rep (tribunal had been told he was going) and he was not accepted as rep or allowed to give all his evidence.

I dont think it is an issue of having no "volunteers who actually care and represent freely". By being a volunteer you are demonstrating a certain level of caring, simply by giving up your time and effort for free.

The introduction of LSC funded services, I think, has meant on the one hand introducing a degree of uniform quality services, but on the other it requires more effort - for example a volunteer caseworker will need to give up at least 12 hours of work each week, show they've been on relevant training, be supervised, etc. This extra effort may be why it is difficult to get volunteers in bureaux to help with welfare benefits representation. I'm sure there are bureau who have volunteers doing welfare benefits, but I've certainly seen a drop in welfare benefit (and money advice) volunteer caseworkers since LSC contracts came about.

The type of volunteer has shifted since I've been doing this also - its great to see a wider diversity of people volunteering but for those looking for experience for careers, a bureau may not get a long term service from them. That makes it difficult to build a volunteer "pool" of welfare benefits caseworkers into your organisation - who picks up their work when they move on? The overworked paid workers? The other volunteers already giving up a lot of their time?

I think the main problem with not being able to represent is that LSC dont pay for the time. I find myself balancing the need to represent (for clients as well as my own personal development) with the need to get "bankable" time (to keep the service running).

This now sounds like a Friday afternoon rant, which it isn't and I mean no offence. I just think the focus for the problem is not volunteers, but rather lack of funding (as usual!!).

I accept it all comes down to funding and money.

I still cannot understand this LSC thing.

Surely in the old days if no paid member of staff was available a volunteer would always attend?

Do you no longer get Council / Local Authority funding in England?

Are you now 100% reliant on this LSC / CLS funding?

I genuinly do not understand the system over the Border, having said that it does seem a reduction in available help, representation and advice rather than an improvement over previous years.

Feel free to correct and point out any errors in the above!

Bill,

The LSC started to dish out contracts in the not for profit sector to stop solicitors making money out of the government. I have worked in both sectors, so I have seen things from both sides of the fence. Not for profit sector organisations are now seeing the down side to LSC funded advice. As charities, they were desperate for the money to keep their service going. It is always a struggle to get funding in this sector. The LSC provided an easy option.
However what is happening now is that charities who provide LSC funded advice have to apply, and police, a means enquiry to their clients. If this enquiry fails then they are not funded to provide the advice. So if they have no other source of project funding then they are unwilling to do the work.
It stinks, but the government is quids in. Loads of solicitors have stopped doing LDC funded work, loads of not for profit orgnisations have taken the funding, loads of people who do not qualify are missing out on benefits.
The next step of course is to go to Tesco's or Asda etc for your legal advice. The government already want to start moving in that direction by letting supermarkets provide conveyancing for house buying.
Where will it all end, we all go to Asda to sign on, get benefit advice, do the shopping and buy a house, all on the cheap at Asda's latest low price offer.

I would be wary of just relying on a written submission round here as it often seems that the tribunal has not actuually read it when I send one in. In addition if the client actually gives evidence in person to the tribunal, which in most of my cases is at least a significant part of the evidence, then I would want the opportunity to come back once the tribunal has tested their evidence. Are the cases where reps are not attending ones where the appelant does not give evidence in person? I'd be interested in how tribunals view claimants evidence without being able to test it.

I can see that with limited resources services have to be rationed some way but personally I don't like the idea of having prepared a case and not being there to make sure it gets dealt with properly by the tribunal or that some ill judged remark by a claimant who has misunderstood a question leads to the loss of an appeal.

Its hard to generalise because one client can be very different from another. I must say i've had the experience where the trbunal members do not seem to have read my submisson. However I've also had the experience where the chair does not fairly record issues brought up verbally during the appeal. Ensuring as many issues as is relevant to the appeal is included in a submission ensures a record that a particular issue was raised. It also obliges a chair to adequately explain why evidence was rejected if he finds against you. So I suppose a good submission is a form of insurance. I have certainly gained set asides and commissioners appeals where the chairman ignored issues and evidence in submissions.

Mind you you are right in that most appeals are won and lost on the claimant's verbal evidence and answers to questions. You're a better man than me if you can recover from an I'll judged remark from a client. I usually find it fatal to success.

Not sure about your point re a tribunal not being able to test evidence. Unless you have presenting officers attending down your way the tribunal has to accept DWP evidence untested. Why should the tribunal view an appellant's evidence any differently?

"Surely in the old days if no paid member of staff was available a volunteer would always attend?"

This fascinates me. I've dealt with two volunteer advisers who'd want to rep, and only one who was competent to rep, in ten years in the service. Volunteers here deal only with general advice, do no casework, and would run forty miles from an apepal venue. I wish we were different, and maybe we are - any alternative experiences?

Repping is much more than mere attendance (although it can be just that if your written sub is perfect and the claimant gives immaculate evidence - yeah that happ
It's not a matter of 'caring' when you're stretched full out trying to help people with dwindling resources and horrific targets, and to say so is pretty insulting to those people trying their very best.

Andrew

In the CAB I used to volunteer in all the work including reps was done by volunteers, it used to be paid staff but volunteers are cheaper, so paid staff were made redundant.

I attended an overnight CAB reps course along with about 8 others, two of them were in their 70's and took no active part in the training, but two days later they were fully qualified to CAB (Scotalnd) reps standards, worrying?

No insult intended to paid staff.

But as a volunteer who does about 70 hours per week I can safely say I fully understand the pressures on advice work and funding.

I would always go to an appeal freely as a volunteer if no paid worker was available in the CAB I used to volumteer in.

Would your organisation allow that to happen if no LSC money was there? I would hope so.

It's better to have some support than none at all.

Hi Bill.

I do seriously question "It's better to have some support than none at all. ". Your two trainees who took no active part - a good thing to have next to a vulnerable client in front of a rapacious tribunal? I've felt myself worsen a client's case. I've felt goaded into concessions by tribunals distorting written submissions. With no rep and a written submission the tribunal can't jerrymander what's in writing with just the client there.

I don't think it's fair on anyone really for a volunteer to rep, at least not unless they are passionately committed and aware of what it really means.

That can fit very well someone in their seventies who wants to 'put something back', who is talented, motivated and keen. But often volunteers have other overriding objectives such as a new social life, something to do when the bridge club isn't working.

I love good volunteers but they're few and far between, and they are far from cheap! Training and management support are very high costs, as are increased admin and logistical support, let alone paying for expenses and things and the inherently higher costs of all of that because of massive turnover. A manager I knew once said that one paid member of staff was worth at least five volunteers for the amount of work done. I think it's probably nearer ten.

And as I said I'm afraid I can't answer your questions about volunteers attending tribunals because I've only ever seen two volunteers, erm, volunteer to do so. It just doesn't happen.

Hi Andrew

Like you I would hope the manager of the CAB the old dears were from had the sense not to allow them to rep or attend, however the fact they were at the training at all had worrying implications.

It must be very, very different in Scotland where all the front line advice is done by volunteers thats CAB policy here, all the reps in the CAB I was in (Admittedly 5 years ago) were volunteers and very, very old, some would say experienced?

Just having someone to go with you to an appeal can be a help.

Trust me I have seen many clients losing appeal due to them saying something wrong.

The favourite is?

My condition has deteriated since the decision.

Can I be permitted a shameless plug for the Free Representation Unit here?

We represent in about 400 cases before the Unified Appeals Tribunal per year in the London area (in addition to our employment and immigration work). We're in the very fortunate position of having the resources to dedicate to representation, not only in terms of finances, but also in terms of people and experience. We're exceptionally fortunate to have as volunteers some of the most talented people entering the legal profession, all of whom will have a legal background and many of whom will be receiving vocational training for the Bar. The work is mutually beneficial from our volunteers' perspective, which means cases get a lot more time than perhaps would be available if we were LSC funded. We also have the benefit of a full-time caseworker dedicated to supervising and training volunteer representatives. The quality of our representation has also been noted (in, for instance, the Leggatt report on the review of tribunals).

Perhaps more could be made of our services when deserving cases arise (for those of you near London)?

The FRU sounds great - for those in or near London

Is there anything for us poor unfortunates not near London?

Hi everyone,

I'd like to add to what's been said already about volunteer reps. I work in a CAB (in Scotland) and most of our representation work is done by volunteers. All CABx are different, but we don't send people on the training if we think they're not up to it or won't be able to rep competently afterwards. We ensure that all our volunteer reps have the chance to observe experienced reps preparing and doing tribunals before they are 'let out' on their own. Our volunteers do written submissions to the tribunal but also make verbal representations on the day (to save clients from 'rapacious' tribunal of which there are plenty). Our support staff are there to discuss cases and support volunteer reps where we can. We have a very acceptable success rate (and we don't cherry-pick either). Our volunteers come from all walks of life - some even have previous welfare rights experience. So I'm all for volunteers representing IF it's managed properly.

I have also worked in a CAB in England just as LSC was making itself felt, and I could see the rapidly encroaching problem of means-testing your clients, two-tier service, making volunteers do 12 hours per week if their work is to be counted....etc etc. Glad I'm not doing that any more, hope it's a long long time before we see it up here.

Anyway. Seems I've just established the Wednesday Night Rant. Sorry.

Helen