|
Post by nickd on Apr 6, 2012 12:39:52 GMT 1
Seriously, SpartacusWe have a mutual problem - it's this...And this..And someone else who says one thing and then does something else...We are not being political; it is just that we are up against a government which will not listen. They do not want us to let you help you when you have to go to Courts & Tribunals like this to sort out your benefits...This is a government which does not want you to be able to get specialist advice from us in CAB & law centres, that's why it is taking away vital legal aid funding and trying to get you to go deal with it yourself. The government keeps promising alternatives, but the reality is before us in the form of what we can see; advice agencies are shutting down in our cities, towns and rural areas.. The Justice Ministers tell us your need of help is not sufficiently serious to warrant legal aid... Out of touch millionaire Ministers of Justice read us the same old scripts, time and time again they say...“While we recognise that the class of individuals bringing these cases is more likely to report being ill or disabled in comparison with the civil legal aid client base as a whole, we have also taken into account the fact that the accessible, inquisitorial, and user-friendly nature of the tribunal means that appellants can generally present their case without assistance.”
Try telling this to Mrs Newman, whose husband sadly died following an ATOS medical examination upon which the DWP had based a decision that he was 'fit for work'. Many claimants who have been through the same process do not know what to do when they hear their benefits are cut, many are saying it is unfair, in some cases it even makes them feel suicidal. Please watch the following video and listen to the concerns over the work capability assessments and Mrs Newman bravely telling us her story.... Benefit specialists are used to disputing the decisions made in similar cases to the one faced by Mr & Mrs Newman. Sadly, it's too late to help him - but in other cases, legal aid funds a team of dedicated & professional benefit specialists to help around 135,000 claimants a year sort out complicated legal disputes concerning their benefits. In appeal cases their average success rate is around 70%. We think there should be more legal aid for benefits, not less.....Government says they have all the answers, they also know how good we are at showing up the mistakes made by the authorities like the Jobcentre, DWP, HMRC & Local Authorities. Government and its Ministry of Justice has made a political choice not to listen to us. They are just getting faceless officials to tick boxes in order to get their way - they want to make sure you cannot get legal aid for benefit cases regardless of how much we save the State. For every £1 spent on welfare benefits advice - Government saves £8.80. They have not been able to dispute our evidence on this, they just want to get their own way... We know why government does not listen to us, it's because all they care about is trying to please their voters by telling them what they think it is they want to hear...We have all seen the cruel and misleading headlines in the papers in a media campaign which has fuelled disability hatred, they point the finger at anyone who has to rely upon benefits to survive. Despite your valiant efforts, the government got their way on welfare reforms. We all know what lies ahead with the passing of untried & untested legislation; it will lead to chaos & crisis...
We have never seen welfare reform of this magnitude before, Government cannot pretend it will not be deeply problematic. There's not a lot we can do to reverse the actual passing of the welfare reform bill, but we can and must make sure it is challenged in its practical application in our Tribunals & Courts by making sure people can access proper help from professionals who will challenge decisions which are wrong. We help put right the kind of incorrect decisions made in cases similar to one which said Mr. Newman was fit for work. It's Mrs Newman who will have to live with this for the rest of her life - we think this sufficiently serious to justify legal aid. Legal aid is by far your best chance of making sure agencies are properly funded to help you achieve the right outcomes. That's why we need your help. We need you to contact your MP and tell them to support us in our case to keep legal aid for welfare benefits. It's the only way we can help you fight the injustices which we will continue to see. We want to be able to carry on helping you fight back when the State gets it wrong....Here is what we are asking of you, it's not a lot and most importantly it will enable us to carry on helping good people like you..After a long hard battle, just as you did in Spartacus, we won some crucial amendments in the Legal Aid, Sentencing & Punishment of Offender's Bill (LASPO) in the House of Lords . Now we need to stop the Government in overturning these on the 17th April when the House of Commons will debate the bill and seek to overturn us on the same grounds that they used in the welfare reforms; - that of financial privilege. We believe this is a battle we can win because it is only a relatively small amount of money at stake. We are talking about £25 million rather than billions of pounds. We can demonstrate the savings we help Government make. You can find out more about all of the 11 key amendments which Government lost here..
mylegal.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=frontline&thread=626&page=1#1483
But the ones which are most relevant to you are amendments 11 & 12 of schedule 1 and 119 of clause 26. Amendment 11 enables up to help you in welfare benefits cases up to First - Tier Tribunal level, amendment 12 up to the Upper Tribunal & the Higher Courts. Amendment 119 would allow us to see you at the first point of contact in person at any legal aid funded office throughout England & Wales; rather than through one single national telephone access point.
For welfare benefits, Justice for All has prepared an excellent briefing paper which was used to win these amendments in the House of Lords. But please remember the bill is no longer in the Lords, it is now subject to consideration in the House of Commons so you will need to contact your constituency or representative MP rather than a peer in the Lords.
See the next post to find out more about how we want you to help.
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Apr 7, 2012 19:22:10 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Apr 7, 2012 19:28:10 GMT 1
Not sure what to say? We want to make this easy for you, so here's a couple of links to find your MP easily here...
www.writetothem.com/
And an example of one sent by our viewers...
edyourself.org/articles/mplegalaidwelfare.php
As well as a template letter you could use (you just edit it to suit, then copy & paste it into an email or letter)...[Your name] [Your address] [Date & contact details] Dear (insert name of your MP) Legal Aid, Sentencing & Punishment of Offender’s Bill to be debated on the 17th April 2012 in the House of Commons. (Amendments to retain welfare benefits specialist help in scope of legal aid scheme) I, Along with the vast majority of people support responsible welfare reform. However, there can be no denying that the government’s programme of radical overhaul of the entire benefits system is very much untried and tested territory. We have yet to see what the true impact upon the vulnerable and disabled will be and there is a need to make sure adequate safeguards remain in place. The implementation of Employment & Support Allowance has already resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of benefit appeals which have been lodged with Her Majesty’s Tribunals & Courts Service. The Tribunal judiciary has produced statistics which show an alarming increase in benefit appeals from 167,000 in 2008/2008 to 418,500 in 2010/2011 with projections that this will have reached 644,000 per year by 2014/2015. [You could always insert a bit about yourself to personalise your own experience..]
For example "I suffer from a chronic form of arthritis and recently had to deal with a benefits appeal. It took a long time to resolve and I found it both stressful and injurious to my personal health. It is my own experience that tells me people should not be exposed to the trauma of dealing with such a challenging situation without access to proper help"
There are very few constituent MP’s & doctor’s surgeries who will not have seen a sharp increase in the numbers of claimants turning to them for help. We believe the right solution is to allow paid professional benefit specialists, typically employed by well established organisations like the Citizens Advice Bureau and law centres, to be able to carry on with their work. They have a proven track record in dealing with around 130,000 often complex problems at a fixed fee of just £150 per case. This is how much their already under-resourced organisations are paid; regardless of how much time they may have to spend on a case. They achieve the right results with success rates of at least 70% which highlights their expertise and illustrates how often the authorities get it wrong. Their work is invaluable in achieving better prospects of an earlier dispute resolution & thus the avoidance of unnecessary costs. The House of Lords voted by a substantial majority to support the work of benefit specialists under the legal aid scheme in passing key amendments 11 and 12 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing & Punishment of Offender’s Bill. They also opposed the introduction of a single point telephone access point to access legal aid by voting for amendment 119 which keeps in place the traditional routes of access by which many of your constituents are by comparison probably able to access your help. *I attach (a brief summary of facts or your own information or the Justice for All briefing for your consideration I strongly urge you as my constituent Member of Parliament to do the right thing and make sure these vital amendments remain in place. I am very grateful to you for your consideration and I put my trust in you for your support. Yours Sincerely (Name)
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Apr 7, 2012 19:30:28 GMT 1
(1) The number of appeals has risen dramatically & looks set to rise further“In SSCS (Social Security & Child Support) the most significant development continues to be the rise in the intake of appeals. The following table shows the recent and forecast trends.” 2008-09 --- 242,800 2009-10 --- 339,200 2010-11 --- 418,500 Forecast2011-12 --- 421,600 2012-13 --- 483,400 2013-14 --- 576,700 2014-15 --- 644,000 These predictions are made by the Tribunal judiciary and reflect how benefit appeals have increased dramatically from 2008/2009 to the present with further increases in the future as more benefits come under review.
The Justice Minister Mr Djanogly has quoted the latest Tribunal statistics for 2011/2012 but The 2011/2012 figure of 211,700 is only a provisional one quoting the 'year to date'. The figures in the Tribunal statistics only deal with the first quarter of 2011 and analyse the months of - July - August - September and October in 2011. The figures do not actually include any from 2012 at all. The latest figure of 166,075 cases outstanding at any one time is very high. It has only reduced by 16,075 from 2010/11 despite the Tribunal Service taking on many additional judicial panel members, increasing the numbers of hearing venues and even sitting on Saturdays. The outstanding case load figure also represents an increase of 27,275 on 2009/2010. The additional resourcing given to the Tribunals Service is not significantly reducing the outstanding case load.
Read more: mylegal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=frontline&action=display&thread=591#ixzz1rac3hAVc
(2) The future effect of welfare reform is an unknown quantity
“ Forecasting the number of appeals that may result from these reforms is, understandably, far from an exact science.”
“The proportion of claimants whose benefit will be removed or reduced on reassessment can only be roughly estimated: similarly, the propensity to appeal of those adversely affected can only be surmised.”
[Sir Robert Martin Senior Tribunal Judge]
The senior Tribunal judiciary have looked at this in detail and concluded that there can be no firm prediction over what will happen in the future. This refutes the Ministry of Justice in their contention that benefit appeals will not continue to be a growing problem (see also point 1)www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Reports/spt-annual-report-2012.pdf(3) Recent changes in the assessment of Employment & Support Allowance (ESA) have not yet led to any reliable data upon which it can be established that it is working any better than it was upon when the allowance was first introduced.
"We do not have statistically accurate data yet"[Chris Grayling] The more recent changes in the ESA assessment following the Harrington reviews cannot be relied upon to provide any evidence upon which it can be established the assessment is now working properly. There are many other opinions to the contrary. If the Work & Pensions Minister has no accurate statistics, there is no evidence to suggest the reviews have made any difference. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmworpen/uc1903/uc190301.htm (4) The human cost of getting it wrong is too high a price to pay."Mental health experts warn against pace of incapacity benefit cuts" Open letter to Guardian suggests changes to welfare system are having 'devastating' impact, driving some to suicide attempts www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/31/incapacity-benefit-cuts-mental-healthThere has been recent media exposure over the catastrophic effects & impact upon human life - it is too serious to disregard, especially when it concerns suicides and deaths in the run up to or following 'fit for work' decisions. Some of these were recently covered in an investigation by the Daily Mirror which alleged 32 claimants a week died awaiting assessment - something has to be wrong when such people are deemed to be 'fit for work'blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2012/04/32-die-a-week-after-failing-in.html(5) Introducing a process of 'mandatory revision before appeal' is to date untested.
“It is too early to be certain because, with the timetabling, we started doing the assessments last June. We now do a reconsideration in virtually every case.” [Chris Grayling] A new process of requiring all appellants to ask for their case to be reconsidered is being considered by Government & is intended to be introduced with all new Universal Credit & Personal Independence Payments. This will have no useful effect unless decision - maker's objectively review cases without the constraint of targets aimed at getting people off benefits. Government seems to be unaware that reconsideration is currently carried out before appeals take place. The consultation mentions additional decision - makers reviewing the evidence but does not say whether it intends to resource the authorities to take on additional staff to enable this to take place. Legal aid specialists are much more likely to put a better case at the reconsideration stage and thus avert the need for an expensive appeal, they will also advise clients where they are unlikely to succeed leading to fewer wasted appeals. Unless the process is carried out properly, the State will have to fund the additional costs of this process but also an appeal as well - if the appellant is not satisfied with the reconsideration they will still go on and appeal. This could introduce further problems if claimants are left months without the correct money in the wait for their case to be properly decided. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmworpen/uc1903/uc190301.htm (6) Government has made unfounded assumptions over the reasons why people appeal. "In a nutshell, if you are saying to people that currently they are getting £90 a week for your benefit and it will be £67, they will always choose to appeal".[Chris Grayling] It is simply unacceptable for the Minister to say the only reason people appeal is because their benefit is cut by £23 a week. The evidence is that of those who do appeal some 40% of claimants are found to have the decision upheld in their favour.(7) Government's statements are refuted by their own contradictions. "Bear in mind that a lot of these are guesstimates within the Department, because we are dealing with an IB cohort about which we know very little."[Chris Grayling] On the one hand, the Minister says the only reason people appeal is because their money is cut and yet in the same evidence session he concedes he knows very little about the group of claimants who are appealing. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmworpen/uc1903/uc190301.htm (8) Professionals involved with the assessment process have lost faith in it. A Mind spokeswoman said some Work Capability Assessments were being rushed and the process should be slowed down or postponed. The DWP has refused to do this, saying it would delay the assessments and leave some people on benefits for longer. A DWP spokeswoman said: "It is an extremely complicated set of recommendations and would involve essentially redoing the whole of the Work Capability Assessment for both mental health and physical health issues. We are going to test this approach in a paper exercise to assess its impact, but it is not right to put the whole process on hold." www.thirdsector.co.uk/news/1125771/mind-rebuts-dwp-version-resignation-row/The resignation of Paul Farmer of MIND from the assessment panel must say something over the declining level of faith in the process & the statutory decisions which are based upon it.(9) The assessment process is inciting 'fear & loathing' amongst claimants. "People who are fit and healthy are unlikely to have heard of the company Atos. But anyone who has had to apply for sickness benefits may find that the name triggers – according to one MP – a sense of “fear and loathing”. More than 400,000 appeals have been lodged against decisions not to grant the benefit since it was launched in October 2008, and 39% have been successful. The tribunals service has been forced to double the number of staff handling appeals, to accommodate the huge volume of complaints. The cost of tribunals is estimated at well over £30m a year." www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/24/atos-faces-critical-report-by-mpsTarring all claimants with the same brush may attract newsworthy headlines, but it flies in the face of the evidence; - 40% of those who appeal are in the right over what they are saying to the authorities. Very little is said over the the fact that the claimants own doctors is now obliged to consider whether their patient could do limited work before declaring them unfit. (10) The Ministry of Justice's estimated costs are in question.The costs quoted in the media and by the Ministry vary greatly. MIND put it at £30 million, the Guardian & Harrington put it at £50 million and in government it has been put at less. These all relate to appeals for 2010/2011 when 418,500 appeal were received by the Tribunals. www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/sep/06/no-turning-back-work-capability-assessmentThese figures cannot be right. A FOI data request reply dated 25th June 2010 under request FOI/65431/10 in this post put the cost of an appeal at £279.00 per case in 2008 for a case of average complexity with a single member Tribunal (ESA are two member & DLA have three). The maths at 418,500 appeals at £279 per appeal comes to a colossal £116,761,500.00 (£116.7 million per year) it doesn't tally with the costs quoted by the Justice Minister and nor does it include the DWP's costs in preparing the appeal or take account of inflationary rises since 2008. Even if the figure of £116 million was adopted; - there is no way of getting away from the fact that around 40% of cases should never end up being contested by the DWP in the first place.
Government needs to be probed far more in to the escalating costs of appeals. if they have taken on more staff & increased the number of judicial sittings it stands to reason the costs will have multiplied considerably. The Ministry of Justice seem to think the answer is to pay for more appeals - in itself this goes against all they say on reducing a culture of litigation. The answer is for the authorities to make the rights decisions and ensure appellants are properly equipped to challenge them when they are wrong. With legal aid for benefits costing around £22 million a year to cover 135,000 cases at £150 the value is obvious when of 418,500 appeals around 167,400 (40%) transpire to be upheld in the claimant's favour. Using the cost of £279 per appeal from 2008 (which we contend is an under-estimate) in our own estimate of 167,400 cases which amounts to £46,704,600 (£46.7 million) of tax payer's money - it's money which could be saved with our help in the earlier resolution of disputes. There is an undisputed saving if you avoid the number of incorrect decisions - you do so most effectively by highlighting the error before an appeal has taken place. This is best done by using legal aid to state the appellant's case at an earlier stage - but the authorities must be prepared to accept the evidence put forward rather than press ahead with target based dis-allowance decisions.
Read more: mylegal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=frontline&action=display&thread=434#ixzz1ralOD4PW(11) The State has been labelled a 'serial litigant' because of the number incorrect decisions it makes. www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/making-polluter-payThe new law journal highlights precisely what we say. It is the Secretary of State who is too inclined to make the wrong decision and leave the appellant to fight it out at a tribunal.(12) The cost savings of keeping these amendments have not been disputed or refuted - it's short sighted to disregard the financial savings, not least when it comes to the WORK programme.Citizens Advice research says that for every £1 spent on welfare benefits advice - £8.80 is saved. The Ministry of Justice has not made one single attempt to effectively refute this evidence because they know it is based on proper research for which Citizens Advice is renowned. It is also well illustrated in the example we have highlighted in point (11). The Ministry of Justice's case for saying benefits work is something which needs only general advice is ridiculed by its concession that the benefits system if so complex that it warrants billions of pounds to be paid out in simplifying it. In addition to which it pays out more for judicial panel members as the numbers of appeals rise - all of whom know how complex social security law is - it is after all why they are appointed to sort out the legal disputes which arise.
One of the areas which the government fails to see the value of the work we do is in helping people win support to get them back to work. A high percentage of the clients we help with Employment & Support Allowance appeals are those who we show to have limited capability for work. On average our success rate is around 70% in this type of appeal - these are the claimants who fall into the 'work related activity group'. A decision found in their favour enables them to access help to get back in to work. This is important to disabled & incapacitated claimants as they want to contribute to society but need a bit of help to find them suitable placements; it is the whole ethos of the Government's flagship 'WORK' programme. Of course we also highlight the cases of claimants who are clearly unable to work and who should be placed in the 'Support' group. Likewise in some cases we tell our clients that they do not meet the criteria for Employment & Allowance and are therefore unlikely to succeed with an appeal - they are more likely to trust our advice because we are impartial and explain the rules to them, we are not bound by targets.
Our analysis of the first figures released over the number of claimants being referred into the work programme was disappointing because it revealed that out of 369,240 claimants quoted by the DWP to have been 'referred' to the Work programme (between 1st June 2011 and the end of October 2011) only 3,110 claimants (less than 1%) were truly long term incapacitated or out of work following an older incapacity claim. The DWP definition of 'long term' is over one year - but the group we are referring to are those who have been on benefits for longer because of incapacity.
Of the 135,000 cases we deal with a year, around 50% are ESA related, which equals 67,500. With success rates of around 70% we are identifying around 47,250 claimants a year. If the DWP listened to us at an earlier stage, avoiding the need for appeal by listening to us rather than opposing us, we could potentially work towards (a) earlier dispute resolution and (b) helping in the identification of much higher cohorts of long term incapacitated claimants. We collate all the information to help them with their appeals and therefore well placed to assist in earlier identification of claimants who could be referred into the programme at a much earlier stage - it's the appeals process which stands in the way - we can do a great deal to help government achieve its WORK related ethos.
Read more: mylegal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=frontline&action=display&thread=586#ixzz1rggm1U00 www.justice-for-all.org.uk/dyn/1323097436589/LASPO-Ctte-briefing-welfare-benefit-legal-aid.pdf(13) One of the strongest advocates for welfare benefit specialists is the Prime Minister.In a speech over the autism bill, he told supporters..
And it's not just expensive for the state - it's exhausting for the parents. Instead of having to bash down every door, the door marked disability permit, the door marked special education, the door marked benefit entitlement, why can't we have one door that opens on to all the things parents need?
"In Austria they've got a great assessment process for severely disabled children. A crack team of paediatric doctor, physiotherapist, child psychiatrist and nurse come into the home, make an assessment and give the family all the support they need.
For the sake of these families' sanity we are looking at the evidence and considering doing something similar in the UK, pulling professionals like doctors, paediatric nurses, physiotherapists and benefits specialists together in one team to act as a one-stop-shop for assessment and advice.
This way they could help families clear that first hurdle quickly and efficiently and effectively give them a key to open one door to everything they need. That would put paid to the days when getting the right help means answering more questions than you would for a mortgage." It's the recognition of the role of benefit specialists which is important. Of course it doesn't just apply to sufferers of autism or even just children - it applies to all disabled claimants. The Prime Minister views the mere claiming of benefits as comparable to applying for a mortgage - we say the complexity pales in to insignificance when compared with what people have to go through when having to appeal.Read more: mylegal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=frontline&action=display&thread=542#ixzz1rgnMLDt6* We are working on a shorter summary of these 13 points and hope to have this on Mylegal very soon.
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Apr 8, 2012 16:48:50 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by edyourself on Apr 10, 2012 9:58:52 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Apr 10, 2012 18:38:10 GMT 1
Excellent work edyourself & a great site you're running too. Thanks so much for helping to spread the word :-)
|
|
|
Post by edyourself on Apr 11, 2012 7:30:30 GMT 1
The changes to Employment Support Allowance rules and the scrapping of Disability Living Allowance are causing huge anxiety amongst people who rely on these benefits. I have friends whose coping strategy is to avoid thinking about how awful it will be in the future.
I also have friends who think - after the emotional rollercoaster of the final stage of the Welfare Reform Bill despite support from the House of Lords - that there is no point in fighting. It is a self-protective strategy not to fight and not to lose again.
If you/we want to reach these people, it may be necessary to explain why the fight is still worth it (err despite the 3 line whip on the Lib Dems, you have to imagine Sisyphus happy etc...) and also (crucially IMO) how solidarity between welfare rights campaigners and legal aid campaigners at this stage will be a good foundation for whatever happens in the post-apocalyptic LASPO world.
In other words, by looking at something scary now and DOING something, it may become LESS scary than avoiding it?
Does this make sense???
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Apr 11, 2012 8:28:13 GMT 1
It's an excellent and very valid point you make edyourself. I agree with you completely, it is something I see in the clients I speak with on a day to day basis. It is almost as though these welfare reforms have invoked a whole new fear syndrome in themselves. I shall have a think about how to get this important message over. Many thanks for your feedback.
|
|