Post by nickd on Apr 22, 2012 13:48:24 GMT 1
Such is the 11th hour nature of these amendments & government's push to get #LASPO passed in time for it to receive Royal Assent, that we should not forget the need to be aware of other changes afoot.
See also 'Mandatory Revision Before Appeal' process
mylegal.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=frontline&thread=621&page=1[/i]
I refer to Government's intended implementation of an extension to clause 100 of Welfare Reform Bill - a new 'mandatory revision before appeal' process whereby a claimant has to apply for a revision before they can appeal. Just as we have heard in so many cases, it's all about fairness and a genuine attempt to resolve benefit claim disputes in an attempt to be 'fair'. It pledges decision - makers will take a second look at the appeal and try and resolve it all with phone calls to the claimant so it can all be sorted out nice and fairly. I'm far from convinced, telephone records will go missing and claimants will get fobbed of with lame explanations as to why it's not worth a claimant continuing with their appeal. I see no sign of this working, it's already in place and all I ever see is just a second tick in the same old box 'I agree with the healthcare professional'. Nor, do I see how the DWP is going to be provided with the resources to take on more 'objective' decision-makers. The problem is all to do with targets. The government wants people off benefits and I'm far from convinced this is going to change all of that; - it's just more delay for claimants in getting their money, it's just more grinding down of claimants so they surrender and say 'I give up'.
Of course it COULD work, if decision - maker's objectively review the evidence and I cannot think of a better way of ensuring this happens other than by ensuring claimants are helped to put their case with specialist help. The more specialist the help - the better the chance of an earlier resolution.
The mandatory revision before appeal process denies a claimant the right to make a direct appeal to an independent adjudication body, it must none the less be considered part of the decision - making & appeals process and therefore access to legal services must be included within the context of complying with a pre-requisite condition of making an appeal which has this condition attached to it.
I am mindful that in Parliament on March 19th Chris Grayling conceded that a trial of the process was something which could not be gauged owing to there being no 'accurate statistics' upon which to do so.
"Any appeal subject to a process of mandatory revision before appeal must be included within the provisions of Lord Bach's amendment"
Link to Mr Grayling in evidence session...
mylegal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=frontline&action=display&thread=642