Flexible New Deal | New Deal Scandal: Leading Welfare Reform Concerns

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Today, I travelled to my Tribunal (details I will post separately) and the whole system is pathetic!

From my experience I have realised that an Appeal Tribunal is simply a tick box to make you feel like you have done your best. After all DWP select the rules (regardless of what the law states) and determines how it is applied. An Appeal Tribunal only advises DWP of what action should be taken. They have no enforcement powers.

My Experience

So I attended the community hall where the Tribunal was taking place. The Tribunal Service had 3 rooms they used all day dealing with numerous cases.

Why a community hall out of the way?

I had to get 2 buses so not that bad of a travel, others had to travel as far away as Stowmarket etc.

Instead of having a court-like building managed by the Tribunal Service or locating it at a Government building such as Jobcentre Plus; to give the opinion that it was truly independent it was based at a community centre.

The waiting game

We were told to wait in a room which was a nursery classroom (obviously the nursery wasn’t on) until called. After entering the room to begin the Tribunal, upon exiting the room while they made their decision, you had to go back in the room and wait for around 20 minutes for a decision to be made before being called back in.

The Tribunal

Upon being invited in to the room, I was introduced to the woman (clerical assistant who came to fetch me) and then the Tribunal Judge introduced herself. No sign of DWP. They didn’t bother turning up. The table was in the formation of a U that was turned on its right side… with the clerical assistant at the U bend side (full of documents irrelevant to the case). On the furthest side of the table was the Judge sitting opposite myself on the other side.

The majority of the discussion was myself being asked personal questions that are completely got nothing to do with the Tribunal. The woman who went in to the same room after me funnily enough said that they ask a lot of personal questions too when she left the room.

Tribunal was allocated approx 10-15 minutes per a person (allowing time for them to then make the decision afterwards in private and to explain it towards the end otherwise it’s allocated to 25 mins but over-runs). My Tribunal alone had paperwork bundle of the thickness of a small telephone directory. No time for any of the documents to be considered. It was all based on the verbal element which consisted largely of the personal questions I was asked.

What is a Tribunal like?

Well, I was under the impression via guidance that it would be like a County Court proceedings but less formal, the DWP would say their case first then I get a chance to say mine afterwards. Pretty much like Court where the Claimant speaks first and the Defendant speaks afterwards. No can do!

It is nothing like that. You sit down and answer questions directed at you (even inappropriate ones).

No Default

Imagined being sued, you go to the hearing and the Claimant and their lawyer or other representative doesn’t turn up; the judge would throw out the case. If the CPS doesn’t turn up at Crown Court then the accused can’t be convicted.

I didn’t take DWP to Tribunal. They took me to the Appeal Tribunal but never turned up.

Why should the Tribunal decide in favour of the DWP who didn’t turn up? The only reason I turned up wasn’t to have my say because it was all contained within the papers, however, if I didn’t turn up, the Judge would have automatically gone into DWP favour.

DWP is dead?

No? The fact is Tribunals rarely have a representative from DWP turning up to them. There were 3 different rooms used and there was no one from DWP in sight!

Secretary of State Vs Nobody

It wasn’t Jobcentre Plus or DWP who I was technically against; but the Secretary of State.

Legislation is written that everything corresponds to the Secretary of State but employees are also delegated via legislation the power and responsibility; although under law it is the Secretary of State acting through such persons. For example, should you receive a Jobseeker Direction although it was someone at the bottom i.e. NDPA, Employment officer etc., under law it is notice by the Secretary of State. In fact, all correspondence from DWP falls under this.

No one is truly a nobody, however, compared to the cabinet members they are. Instead of it being Vs Joe Bloggs, Section Manager (Jobcentre Plus) or whatever, it is Secretary of State i.e. part of the cabinet who along with the Prime Minister etc. hold full accountability for the affairs of the entire country!

Decision Making

The Judge follows different guidelines to that of DWP Decision Makers and although independent from the DWP such guidelines from what I understand are made not to conflict (i.e. unlikely to be of any assistance).

The situation in this case is DWP thinks their decision (as using the Decision Makers Guide  (DMG) – simplified version of Regulations) was correct, I disputed this because I researched this and found out it wasn’t. It seems the Tribunal had no authority to award a full successful appeal to myself due to me stating that they didn’t follow the law and that evidence was fabricated to trick the Tribunal into going in their favour.

Common Sense

Common Sense would state that as I exceeded absences that I was guilty to a sanction subject to certain exceptions. DMG states that no sanction is applicable if I had “Good Cause” which I did but the DWP Decision Maker failed to see it. The Tribunal isn’t setup however to finding “good cause” they apparently have no authority to make a decision in finding “good cause” therefore have decided to stick to the DWP’s story as right to sanction for exceeding absences.

My efforts of getting them to see I had “good cause” was wasted.  Somehow I believe this isn’t a mere coincidence.

What is the point of an “independent” Tribunal to appeal against a decision where they don’t even have the ability to adhere to the same guidance as the initial Decision Maker?

DMG is a plain English guideline of the law. The law exists, DWP chooses whether or not to follow it and the Tribunal which has near classification to a Court doesn’t even bother with checking the relevant laws other than the laws which specifically regulate the Tribunal itself.

Decision Notice

Once called in to collect the Decision Notice, the Judge explains it while in front of you is an envelope with the written decision in. It also had other guidance but no information on appealing to an Upper Tribunal ironically enough.

Partial Appeal?

My Decision Notice stated they have allowed a partial appeal and halved the sanction as the “tribunal found that it was fair in all the circumstances to reduce the sanction period“.

How does this work? Surely, they either support the Appellant or the Respondent.  Going half way in my eyes raises concerns:- either DWP was correct in their decision or I was in the right and my appeal should have been accepted. This reminds me of the unfair bank charges – where banks would negotiate settlements.

200,000 people

The Tribunal Service see’s around 200,000 people every year. Today, I met a couple of people who have been going through the system. One was someone who had a Tribunal regarding a disability and benefits which had been adjourned until next year. The other was regarding a funeral payment which was refused – this meant the woman had to live through the entire ordeal again leading up to the Tribunal. Luckily enough she was successful in her Appeal.

Travel Costs

Totally unprepared. I had to wait half an hour for travel reimbursement and the woman told me that they would pay it to my bank account. She said they had no money on them. I had to argue with her saying the letter I received said they would reimburse travel costs on the same day and that I didn’t have any money to get home (partially true – had enough cash for one bus back not for the other though). She then went in the other room and along came a petty cash tin – I was finally reimbursed.

Appeal Tribunal

To recap:

• Tribunals have no legal power to enforce its decisions
• Tribunals can’t enforce or persuade the DWP to pay outstanding owed benefit
• Tribunals can’t enforce a deadline of payment
• Tribunals therefore allow such payment to be suspended while they appeal to the decision
• Tribunals can withdraw or revise their decisions

Really Independent?

Not at all. Like I mentioned above, the Respondent is the Secretary of State; the Secretary of State is also the person who implemented the law and delegates powers to the judges etc.

Really Impartial?

Not at all. The law is sided with the Respondent. The law mentions numerous clauses whereby should the Appellant lie, give false evidence etc. that the Appeal could be thrown out etc. however, they don’t exist for the Respondent who still has a fair chance even with fabricated evidence etc.

Whats the point?

If the Appeal Tribunal really has no enforcement powers (only gives advice to DWP) and the system is legally structured against the person appealing then it isn’t fair or useful for that person at all.

comments welcome!