Post by nickd on Mar 13, 2011 14:23:01 GMT 1
It does incense me me when Mr Djanogly says we in CAB were only ever meant to do 'basic advice', the fact is we don't - we work at highly specialised level and if we can no longer offer this service - who will?
Let me tell you about what I got up to on Friday as part of my not 'un-typical' workload.
I found myself leaving early to go off to our local county court, where I represented one of my clients in a highly complicated case involving alleged overpayments of Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance, Housing Benefit & Council Tax Benefit. An allegation has been made by the DWP and the Local Council that my client has been living with a partner whilst not declaring it - I see a lot of these allegations these days. The allegation is contested and on that I can say no more; - suffice to say the overpayment is considerable; my client has had the threat of a prosecution hanging over her head since 2007, the DWP have yet to decide whether she'll be prosecuted or not.
Any criminal prosecution is completely separate from the overpayment proceedings, as welfare benefit specialists we deal with the aspect of the case which criminal defence say is our specialist field. They deal with all criminal law aspects - at the moment there is nothing for them to do.
This is apparently a 'user friendly' Tribunal, although you wouldn't think so when you walk in to the court room where the case is heard. The judge sits at the front; empaneled behind his raised bench; - above his head hangs the crest. The court is a large one with many seats, the're are microphones and a witness box. I'm used to this, but my client isn't; - 'user friendly' it is not. I have called four witnesses and they have to wait outside. The DWP and Council have called no-one; - for their case is based on an 'anonymous' complaint.
Our paper work is brought into the Court in a large plastic tray, there are well over a thousand pages in different bundles - all earmarked with yellow 'post it' notes so I know where to locate the relevant pages when I need them. Such is the volume of evidence in this case that I also use a laptop to help me identify which sections of our argument we are on and to follow my own submissions; - it's much less tiring on the eyes. I am accompanied by one of our volunteers who came along to see what goes on, it's good experience and helps him learn of what happens when a general adviser passes a case onto us in our specialist advice section.
This is the second time this case has been heard, on the last occasion I raised a legal argument. It's hardly bed time reading all of this. For those of you may want to know it's over whether the conditions of section 71(5) of the Social Security Administration Act have been met and furthermore whether the decisions made by the DWP have been correctly 'revised' or 'superseded' under section 9 or 10 of the Social Security Act. I say they have not; - what's more - a lot of supporting case law seems to be well and truly on my side. It's well founded that in an overpayment case, the standard of decision-making must of necessity be carried out with meticulous detail and to the highest of standards; - a lot is at stake in cases like this, not least the liberty of my client if it all goes pearshaped. I should mention that I've already successfully appealed advserse decisions in two separate cases for Employment & Support Allowance and Disability Living Allowance for my client. The authorities seem to say she is not entitled to anything; two Tribunals have proved them wrong.
None of this would mean anything to 'Jo Public' - I know it, the Judge knows it, the DWP knows it, the Council knows it, my client knows it and yes my shadowing volunteer knows it as well; - but could someone, please oh please tell Mr Djanogly - for clearly he does not!
After the last adjournment in December of last year - the judge invited written submissions and so I obliged. Ours were exchanged about two weeks ago, but I only got to see the fifty page response written out by the Council this Thursday. Much midnight oil was spent on reading it and putting forward a counter argument. The DWP provided a briefer reply on the morning of the hearing; - I'm not sure they've fully understood the issue - but none the less, they have their say. The presenting officers are well respected and ones I know well; we all have a good respect for each other.
The hearing is listed for all day- I present my oral argument and say we can't proceed until this has been sorted out. The judge agrees. The judge goes on to compliment all of us on the 'high standard' of 'our professionalism' and says what a complicated issue it is that he to decide. The judge invites further written argument; I'm already on the case. An apology is given by the judge to my client for further delay and also to the witnesses who have all had to waste their day.
The case is adjourned to be heard another day. I exchange the usual pleasantries with the Council and the DWP - we're all professionals and know how laughable these reforms are to suggest appellants can represent themselves, it's just absurd to say they can. We shake hands and go our separate ways.
Before I leave I grab a few opportune words with the judge over these reforms, he shakes his head and says well done for the campaigning that I do. He also tells me that when he first came to the Tribunal circuit many years ago;- all he needed was a little book on social security law. He shrugs as he tells me how he now relies on little short of a legal library; the little book being well and truly resigned to history.
It's legal points we argue Mr Djanogly - just like you used to in your days as a a corporate lawyer. You really should get to know your subject because if you think social security law is simple' - you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
Oh and by the way, all this and more to come is done for £167 + Vat, we do the representation on a 'pro-bono' basis; - to cut legal aid in social security disputes is just total and utter lunacy. You've also overlooked the effect these decisions can have on the liberty of a claimant Mr Djanogly;- I'd call that slipshod.
Let me tell you about what I got up to on Friday as part of my not 'un-typical' workload.
I found myself leaving early to go off to our local county court, where I represented one of my clients in a highly complicated case involving alleged overpayments of Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance, Housing Benefit & Council Tax Benefit. An allegation has been made by the DWP and the Local Council that my client has been living with a partner whilst not declaring it - I see a lot of these allegations these days. The allegation is contested and on that I can say no more; - suffice to say the overpayment is considerable; my client has had the threat of a prosecution hanging over her head since 2007, the DWP have yet to decide whether she'll be prosecuted or not.
Any criminal prosecution is completely separate from the overpayment proceedings, as welfare benefit specialists we deal with the aspect of the case which criminal defence say is our specialist field. They deal with all criminal law aspects - at the moment there is nothing for them to do.
This is apparently a 'user friendly' Tribunal, although you wouldn't think so when you walk in to the court room where the case is heard. The judge sits at the front; empaneled behind his raised bench; - above his head hangs the crest. The court is a large one with many seats, the're are microphones and a witness box. I'm used to this, but my client isn't; - 'user friendly' it is not. I have called four witnesses and they have to wait outside. The DWP and Council have called no-one; - for their case is based on an 'anonymous' complaint.
Our paper work is brought into the Court in a large plastic tray, there are well over a thousand pages in different bundles - all earmarked with yellow 'post it' notes so I know where to locate the relevant pages when I need them. Such is the volume of evidence in this case that I also use a laptop to help me identify which sections of our argument we are on and to follow my own submissions; - it's much less tiring on the eyes. I am accompanied by one of our volunteers who came along to see what goes on, it's good experience and helps him learn of what happens when a general adviser passes a case onto us in our specialist advice section.
This is the second time this case has been heard, on the last occasion I raised a legal argument. It's hardly bed time reading all of this. For those of you may want to know it's over whether the conditions of section 71(5) of the Social Security Administration Act have been met and furthermore whether the decisions made by the DWP have been correctly 'revised' or 'superseded' under section 9 or 10 of the Social Security Act. I say they have not; - what's more - a lot of supporting case law seems to be well and truly on my side. It's well founded that in an overpayment case, the standard of decision-making must of necessity be carried out with meticulous detail and to the highest of standards; - a lot is at stake in cases like this, not least the liberty of my client if it all goes pearshaped. I should mention that I've already successfully appealed advserse decisions in two separate cases for Employment & Support Allowance and Disability Living Allowance for my client. The authorities seem to say she is not entitled to anything; two Tribunals have proved them wrong.
None of this would mean anything to 'Jo Public' - I know it, the Judge knows it, the DWP knows it, the Council knows it, my client knows it and yes my shadowing volunteer knows it as well; - but could someone, please oh please tell Mr Djanogly - for clearly he does not!
After the last adjournment in December of last year - the judge invited written submissions and so I obliged. Ours were exchanged about two weeks ago, but I only got to see the fifty page response written out by the Council this Thursday. Much midnight oil was spent on reading it and putting forward a counter argument. The DWP provided a briefer reply on the morning of the hearing; - I'm not sure they've fully understood the issue - but none the less, they have their say. The presenting officers are well respected and ones I know well; we all have a good respect for each other.
The hearing is listed for all day- I present my oral argument and say we can't proceed until this has been sorted out. The judge agrees. The judge goes on to compliment all of us on the 'high standard' of 'our professionalism' and says what a complicated issue it is that he to decide. The judge invites further written argument; I'm already on the case. An apology is given by the judge to my client for further delay and also to the witnesses who have all had to waste their day.
The case is adjourned to be heard another day. I exchange the usual pleasantries with the Council and the DWP - we're all professionals and know how laughable these reforms are to suggest appellants can represent themselves, it's just absurd to say they can. We shake hands and go our separate ways.
Before I leave I grab a few opportune words with the judge over these reforms, he shakes his head and says well done for the campaigning that I do. He also tells me that when he first came to the Tribunal circuit many years ago;- all he needed was a little book on social security law. He shrugs as he tells me how he now relies on little short of a legal library; the little book being well and truly resigned to history.
It's legal points we argue Mr Djanogly - just like you used to in your days as a a corporate lawyer. You really should get to know your subject because if you think social security law is simple' - you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
Oh and by the way, all this and more to come is done for £167 + Vat, we do the representation on a 'pro-bono' basis; - to cut legal aid in social security disputes is just total and utter lunacy. You've also overlooked the effect these decisions can have on the liberty of a claimant Mr Djanogly;- I'd call that slipshod.