Post by nickd on Feb 2, 2012 22:03:05 GMT 1
A story about 23 year old disabled Hester who wants to work but can't because the DWP say she's not entitled to any support - it's legal aid which sorted this out
The Ministry of Justice tells us how legal aid "costs us far too much money and should only be reserved for serious cases".
This BBC TV footage gives a brilliant example of how a CAB client Hester aged 23 would be left floundering in the system if legal aid ends up being abolished for anyone with a complicated benefit problem.
Government says we cannot afford to help people like Hester - yet her case shows legal aid to be an absolute winner when it comes to saving the state money.
Here's why we are right and Government is wrong...
(1) Winning the argument
Let's not forget, Hester won her appeal in common with thousands of other claimants who are showing the State to be in the wrong. Around 40% of claimants in Employment & Support Allowance cases are winning their appeals, it's around 70% when claimant's are helped by legal aid. There's been an explosion in the number of people appealing and government is ignoring the successful outcomes being obtained; it chooses to just throw more of the tax payer's money at paying for more and tribunals as as it starts upon its untested and ambitious programme of welfare reform.
It's Hester who wins the argument - not the Secretary of State.
(2) You can't argue with the decision reached by the Tribunal in Hester's case.
Government proudly stands by new tough rules on who gets their benefit, it's therefore only right that they concede to defeat when someone like Hester has her entitlement confirmed by a proper appeal Tribunal who look at all the evidence. It's not up to those who believe all they read in the papers with their incessant labeling of claimant's as scroungers to pass judgement, it's best decided by people who know all the facts.
Hester's case was decided on the facts - not upon the distorted views of the misinformed.
(3) It is the Secretary of State who is costing the tax-payer money. It is social welfare legal aid which provides the savings.
I know Hester's case only too well because I dealt with it under the legal aid scheme; - I know the fact from the fiction. Hester had already tried to deal with her case with her mother's help, they couldn't and were advised to get specialist help. The Tribunal couldn't help them and nor could the DWP. They also tried to get help from their local MP Sarah Wollaston who wrote to ATOS to no avail. It was legal help from our office which helped to get this sorted out at a Tribunal which confirmed her award late last year. The DWP had every opportunity of settling the case before the hearing; instead they accepted the word of the ATOS healthcare professional who found Hester to have no limitation in her ability to work. Once we had put all the right evidence before the Tribunal, it was quickly found in Hester's case.
Our costs were £167 (now reduced to £150). The Secretary of State cost the tax payer £2008.05 (see our breakdown of costs). It's a no-brainer, when it comes to saving the tax payer expense it's legal aid which is the clear winner.
(4) The legal aid purse is there to protect those most in need of justice, it is not to line the pockets of wealthy gold plated lawyers who know every trick in the book when it comes to getting their clients off the hook.
Government is ignoring a Parliamentary Accounts Committee which looked in to the way the Ministry of Justice spends legal aid. The same committee seriously questioned how some barristers were earning up over £1 million pounds per year in hefty legal aid fees borne by the tax payer. The Ministry of Justice prioritizes legal aid in its reforms to those cases which it sees as the most serious, is this the best way of apportioning the legal aid budget?
Surely, it was surely never the intention of the legal aid scheme to pay for defending business tycoons in high cost fraud cases? Government is encouraging people to look at other ways of covering their legal costs should they need to take out or defend a case. The world of finance sees plenty of individuals making a vast fortune when the going is good, what government now seems to be saying is that when it all goes pear shaped, the tax payer should pick up the tab, surely high financiers should look at ways of meeting their defence costs when one of their lot appears to fall foul of the law?
Take one time billionaire Asil Nadir, after being charged with 66 counts of fraud totaling £150 million, he fled the UK in 1993 and has only recently returned to clear his name at an estimated cost of between four and six million pounds; - his legal costs are being met out of the legal aid purse.
Mr. Nadir's case could cost you up to £6 million pounds
Hester's case costs you just £150 in legal aid, a total cost to the state of £26 million for 120,000 cases.
Hester has no funds of her own to fight for the support she needs to cope with a life long disability. Asil Nadir has led a life of extravagance, he still leads an exuberant lifestyle in an apartment reportedly rented out for £20,000 a month in London's plush Mayfair. Who's kidding who as to who should really get the help here?
There are very few people who wouldn't want to see Hester getting the help she deserves. Whereas, high finance has more than enough cash to bail out one of its own when credibility and integrity are on the line. Rather than relying on the State, high finance should save a bit for a rainy day, a form of 'bail-bond' I would say.
(5) Legal aid ensures the right outcome is achieved in the work capability assessment. Government's WORK programme will fail in its objectives if it based on early stage failure in the process.
The video footage illustrates how Hester wants to work. Her appeal wasn't just about the money, it was all about getting the Support to help her find her independence so that she can bring in some money of her own and find her way in life. An appeal for Employment & Support Allowance is not about finding people incapable of work, it is all about identifying those who have a limitation and need support to help them transition from welfare to work. Hester is very clear, despite her disability, that she wants to work. It is with complete frustration that her appeal has dragged on for almost a year and denied her all opportunity of being able to get into some of work. By denying claimants legal help to state their case all government is doing is contributing to the number of errors made in the assessment process. It is fundamental to all the aims of the welfare reforms that claimants be accurately assessed so as to ensure them a correct placement in the WORK programme. This is no longer about people trying to say they are not capable of work, it is all about getting support to find employment; - it's why it is called 'Employment & Support Allowance'.
Correct assessment = correct placement in WORK programme = better prospect of transitioning from welfare in to sustainable work. Legal aid ensures a better quality of assessment.
(6) Ministry of Justice - selling the tax-payer short.
At every opportunity, the Ministry of Justice reminds us how the £2.1 billion pound legal aid bill costs £39 per head of population, it tells us it is the most expensive legal aid system in the world, but the Ministry isn't giving you the full picture.
The Ministry of Justice is right, there is a lot of waste within the justice department. There's a lot the Ministry doesn't tell us, but here's something everyone should understand when it comes to social welfare legal aid for welfare benefits......
The cost
Less than 50p
The Ministry of Justice doesn't want you all to know that welfare benefit legal aid costs less than 50 pence per head of population per year, 41 pence to be precise; - it's less than 1 pence a day.
Using Citizens Advice worked examples which show that for every £1 spent on welfare benefits advice, £8.80 is saved. For less than one pence a week, the state makes a saving of £228.8 million pounds per year (see worked example at end of this article)
____________________________________________________
References:
Quantified costing of Hester's case
£238.60 First Hearing (quoted by MoJ)
£238.60 Second Hearing
£150.00 DWP Costs (DWP impact assessment)
£55.00 NHS GP Visits (2) (NHS PCT £27.50 per visit))
£55.00 Optician's costs
£55.00 Intervention of local MP
£100.00 Second ATOS assessment and processing (RMJ)
£1,115.85 43 weeks of loss of Work Related Activity
£2,008.05 Total
Asil Nadir
Taxpayers are facing a multi- million-pound bill to defend runaway tycoon Asil Nadir after he was granted legal aid to fight £34million theft charges. In a case that will ignite the controversy over the legal aid system, the multi-millionaire will be funded by the taxpayer as he attempts to fight charges over the collapse of his Polly Peck empire 20 years ago. The demise of the company hit tens of thousands of pensioners and small shareholders, who lost hundreds of millions. Up until now the flamboyant ex- fugitive – who was worth a reputed £1.7billion in 1990 – has been funding his defence, but the Legal Services Commission has now awarded legal aid for the case which could drag on for years. Legal experts estimate the case, which has been put back until next January, will cost taxpayers £4million, but the bill for his legal aid could push that figure to £6million. Nadir, 69, famously fled the UK in May 1993, after being charged with 66 counts of theft totalling £150million, later reduced to £34million. For years he lived a life of luxury in Northern Cyprus, which has no extradition treaty with the UK.
Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-....l#ixzz1lR3QU1ug