Welcome to the third edition of the AJC Newsletter. As well as updating you on the work of the Administrative Justice Council and its members, we offer contributions from across the UK jurisdictions, from those representing the judiciary, the advice sector, ombudsman schemes and academics. We welcome your feedback; contact us at ajc@justice.org.uk
|
|
NEW MEMBERS
This is the first edition since Sir Keith Lindblom, Senior President of Tribunals, became our new Chair. The Council and Secretariat are also delighted to welcome Rosemary Agnew, Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, as our Deputy Chair. Please refer to their introductory messages in the body of this Newsletter.
To the Council, we welcome Rebecca Hilsenrath (Director of Strategy & Communications, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman) and Ursula O'Hare (Director, Law Centres Northern Ireland).
We will continue to review our membership over the summer, and hope to welcome new members in our November Newsletter.
|
FAREWELL
Thank you to Claire Blades (Citizens Advice) and Jo Hickman (Public Law Project) who have stepped down from the Council and the Advice Sector Panel. Karen Ashton (Law Centres Network) has stepped down from the Council and Steering Group but will remain on the Advice Sector Panel. Christopher Hodges has stepped down from the Academic Panel.
Many thanks to Anne Killeen (Z2K) for her valuable contributions as a member of our Advice Sector Panel.
Finally, a huge thank you to Andrea Coomber who leaves JUSTICE to join The Howard League for Penal Reform as their CEO later this year. Andrea set up the AJC with Sir Keith's predecessor, Sir Ernest Ryder, and JUSTICE continues to house the Secretariat. We wish Andrea every success in her new role.
|
|
Foreward
Sir Keith Lindblom, Chair of the Administrative Justice Council
I am delighted to succeed Sir Ernest Ryder as Chair of the Administrative Justice Council. As the only body in the United Kingdom with oversight of the administrative justice system, the work of the Council takes on even greater importance. I am pleased to see that included in the aims of the AJC is ensuring that the needs of the user are central. Sir Andrew Leggatt used this same theme in his 2001 report ‘Tribunals for Users’ that led to the creation of the unified tribunal structure that I am now privileged to lead. I echo his sentiment that tribunals are for users and not the other way around and this must apply to the system of administrative justice more generally. I am confident that the interests of the administrative justice system are in good hands when I see the commitment and diversity of experience amongst the members of the Council.
For most users, engaging with the administrative justice system is a rare occurrence that happens perhaps only once in their lives and often unwillingly and at the end of protracted dealings with a government department. Our justice system is one of the best in the world but this does not mean we can be complacent. We must continuously strive to adapt and improve. I have no doubt that the broad work being undertaken by the Council, including improving decision making, benefits reform and the interrelation between ombudsman’s schemes and tribunals, will help us to do so.
|
|
|
An Introduction
Rosemary Agnew
(Deputy Chair, Administrative Justice Council; Scottish Public Services Ombudsman)
Hello! I recently accepted the role of Deputy Chair of the AJC. It was an honour to be offered the role, especially as it is focused on something I feel strongly about, access to justice. It is a new role and I look forward to working with Sir Keith and my colleagues across the Council in its development.
My day job is the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO), an office I have held since May 2017. Prior to that, I was the Scottish Information Commissioner. My career over the last 20 years has been firmly rooted in the complaints arena, having also worked for the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (at the time the Local Government Ombudsman). I didn’t set out to be an Ombudsman; I don’t think any of us do. But once in that environment, I was hooked and I have never left. I consider myself to be very lucky; I have been able to pursue a career consistent with my values and work with some amazing people who share and promote the same values.
Ombudsman are often referred to as being part of the Alternative Dispute Resolution landscape. The Alternative being in relation to Courts. I prefer to focus on the dispute resolution, rather than the alternative, as to my mind, all routes for justice and redress are an integral part of access to justice.
Scotland is a very interesting place to be in terms of access to justice. There is very much a driver to being rights focused, especially in relation to access to public services, redress and public service accountability. There is a commitment to embed human rights through the National Human Rights Framework.
There are a number of specific areas where rights are at the forefront; of particular note is children’s rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill. On 16 March 2021, MSPs voted unanimously for the Bill to become law, meaning Scottish public authorities will have to comply with certain standards on children's rights, and it gives Scottish courts the power to decide if legislation is compatible with them.
Of course, since then this bill and the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill have been challenged at the Supreme Court by UK ministers, concerned that the standards set by the bills could also be applied to Westminster legislation. They argue that this would place legal obligations on the way UK minsters act in reserved areas, something MSPs do not have the authority to do.
Despite the challenges, I anticipate that some elements will go ahead anyway, and my office is currently in discussion with the Scottish government and other stakeholders about developing and implementing child friendly, or as we often refer to it, child focused complaints procedures, just one element of the wider programme. Making processes child friendly is going to be challenging but the more challenging will be making those processes accessible in such a way that the child’s voice is heard and listened to – whether or not they are speaking up for themselves.
My interest in access to justice is not confined to Scotland. Collectively, the different UK jurisdictions face increasing challenges in giving UK citizens consistent access to all forms of justice. The relationship between jurisdictions’ national contexts and legislative provisions are critical to this. A good example of this is the relative importance given to Public Service Ombudsman powers and duties. I communicate with ombudsman colleagues, and while we share good practice and work as consistently as we can, the development of our respective legislative frameworks means that access to our services, and the scope of those services, now varies across the UK. In Wales and Northern Ireland for example, the public service ombudsmen have powers to investigate issues under their own initiative. Unlike the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and the SPSO, they are not limited to only investigating complaints made to them. This means they can actively investigate for and give a voice to those who don’t traditionally make complaints, especially because of vulnerability.
COVID-19 has both created new access to justice issues, and highlighted the existing cracks in the system. Of particular interest to me is the role of advocacy and support. Well-trained, experienced “advocates” are an essential part of the access to justice landscape, but access to such support is patchy, inconsistent and often left to those trying to access justice to find and for themselves.
Hopefully, this gives you a flavour of what is on my mind right now.
If you want to know more about the SPSO contact me, or visit our website https://www.spso.org.uk/ . If you are interested in learning more about Ombudsman services, both public and private sector, visit the Ombudsman Association website https://www.ombudsmanassociation.org/
|
|
|
The SEND Tribunal: An Update
by Judge Meleri Tudor, Deputy Chamber President
It was in November 2011 that I first suggested to HMCTS administration that a lot of tribunal work could be undertaken remotely. Put into that context, it has been a long haul to get to fully digital working, but the incremental changes in that direction, over the years, placed the First-tier Tribunal SEND/CS/PHL in a very good position when a sudden final move to fully digital working was necessary in 2020. My jurisdictions have the advantage of being small and proactive in finding new and better ways of working and that has paid significant dividends over the last 16 months.
The decision to move to fully digital working and video hearings was taken barely a week before the action became essential to enable the Tribunals to continue to deliver the service their users required. The exercise involved new training, guidance and support to both judicial office holders and tribunals users to ensure its effectiveness and maintain the desired quality of service. It is thanks to the readiness of our judicial office holders and administrative staff to redouble their efforts and go the extra mile at that time, to ensure that the Tribunals have been able to continue to deliver the service at pace and volume.
The First-tier Tribunal SEND has seen significant gains from the move to fully digital and video: as a national English jurisdiction, the ability to list panels to hearings across the length and breadth of England, accessing digital bundles without the old concerns about travel and logistics, has been a huge boon and the difficulties which had beleaguered the jurisdiction in the preceding twelve months, leading to hearings being postponed for lack of judicial time or hearing venues, fell away at a stroke. The positive response from the majority of the Tribunal’s users has demonstrated the extent to which the current arrangements have proved accessible, but at the same time it has demonstrated areas where more work is required to develop the service.
The changes which have been implemented by other organisations as well, have supported the increased use of video and digital to access courts and tribunals. Through the SEND User Group meetings, we discovered that a number of local authorities in England have developed IT hubs where families without access to technology and a stable broadband could access equipment to enable them to participate remotely in public law family hearings. The potential to broaden the use of such a network to enable families to access tribunal hearings has been floated and local authority engagement in developing local hubs encouraged.
At the same time, HMCTS is being encouraged to develop “video booths” consisting of appropriate hardware placed in a small private room in existing hearing centres to enable members of the public to use the courts own hardware and broadband to access video hearings and digital bundles. Rooms formerly used as consultation areas in hearing centres can be ideal for this purpose and creating that facility throughout the courts estate would facilitate easier access for those who may otherwise be “digitally excluded”.
In cases where a face to face element is necessary because of disability or other accessibility issues, the Tribunal has arranged ‘hybrid hearings’. In the Health Education and Social Care Chamber. that means any combination of the judge and panel in a hearing room with one or more of the parties and witnesses joining by video or telephone from other location or all the participants joining by different means and a party in a hearing centre. They are hybrid in the broadest sense and such hearings have worked well. The biggest issue currently for the peripatetic jurisdiction is securing appropriate venues to conduct hybrid hearings, with the court work backlog tying up a majority of the hearing rooms available.
What have we learnt?
The importance of stable broadband and decent sized screens to allow a fully video hearing to proceed cannot be underestimated. Managing to access digital bundles and participating fully in a hearing is a task that becomes easier with practice and enabling tribunal users the to test their equipment and work out the configuration that works for them in advance of the start of a hearing is essential.
The use of video hearings has generally been met with positivity across the Tribunals user groups. In F-tT SEND, the platform has enabled the additional participation of children and young people in hearings, with young people sitting in their own safe space in their bedrooms or living rooms, using their smartphones to join hearings. This has been regarded as a very positive development: the Tribunal has always required the provision of the views of children and young people about the issues in the appeal for consideration by the Tribunal. What better way of understanding those views than by encouraging their participation in the hearing where they wish to do so, by the use of video. Remote hearings have, for many users, reduced the stress of having to attend unfamiliar buildings, making complicated childcare arrangements and enduring long journeys to reach their hearings. In this jurisdiction, the response to remote working has been overwhelmingly positive.
The future?
The Tribunals have learnt a great deal from digital and remote working and having honed our skills in this area, propose to maintain them and keep video hearings and digital working as part of our offer to the Tribunals’ users. There is no one size that fits all tribunal users, but hybrid hearings in the broadest sense can enhance access to justice by making hearings more accessible. For that reason, the proposal is that, even as we see the removal of pandemic restrictions in England, the HESC jurisdictions will emerge with new skills and a broader menu of accessibility strategies to offer, which we hope will enable all users to join hearings flexibly, to meet their needs and to receive the service they require, delivered as efficiently as possible. That must mean better access to justice for all parties.
|
|
TLEF research reveals the impact of COVID-19 on tribunal hearings
A report by TLEF research director Dr Natalie Byrom and Sarah Beardon examines the impact of remote hearings across the tribunals and sets out 35 recommendations to guide their use as the tribunals move toward recovery.
The grant-giving charity The Legal Education Foundation has published research which sheds light on the experience of tribunal judges as they adapted to the use of remote hearings in the early months of the pandemic. The research was commissioned by the Senior President of Tribunals to better understand the impact of COVID-19 on the tribunals, identify opportunities for improvement and guide future developments.
“ The tribunals provide a vital safety net for many people, including those who are most vulnerable. The swift action taken by the judiciary and HMCTS to implement remote hearings ensured that this safety net remained available during the pandemic. The Foundation felt it was important to support the tribunals judiciary to gather lessons from this period, and to ensure that the future use of remote hearings is guided by empirical insights”
Matthew Smerdon, TLEF chief executive
The survey on which the report is based captured the experiences of over 1500 tribunal judicial office holders who were asked to reflect on the remote hearings they had taken part in between March and July 2020. The 35 recommendations presented in the report set out immediate practical and longer- term steps to improve the experience of judicial office holders and to ensure that remote hearings are deployed in a manner that secures safe, effective and efficient access to justice.
The report’s recommendations include:
- The introduction of pre-hearing checks to identify vulnerable tribunal users and provide them with appropriate support to participate effectively [recommendations 2.1- 2.2]
- Urgent action to improve access to papers for judicial office holders and parties [recommendations 3.1-3.3]
- Urgent action to review the functionality and stability of Cloud Video Platform and additional design features to be added to the specification for any future platform [recommendations 4.1-5.4]
- The recommendation of a minimum threshold for technical performance below which the fairness and efficacy of hearings is threatened to ensure consistency and uphold the rule of law [recommendation 5.5]
- Additional safeguards to support the effective participation of appellants in detained settings [recommendation 6.2]
- Leadership judges should issue guidance recommending the reservation of remote hearings for: i.) short, straightforward hearings concerning points of law, ii.) hearings not involving live evidence, iii.) hearings where all parties are represented and joining with their representative and iv.) hearings where all parties have access to good broadband and adequate technology. Importantly, it is recommended that this guidance should remain in place until independent research exploring the impact of remote hearings on outcomes and perceptions across a representative sample of tribunal users has been conducted [recommendations 7.1-7.5]
- Urgent action to review the data already captured by HMCTS on remote hearings and address key data gaps [recommendations 8.1-8.4]
Copies of “Understanding the impact of COVID-19 on tribunals: The experience of tribunal judges” are available here
Report appendices, including a copy of the survey and HMCTS data audit template are available here
For more information, contact: report lead author and TLEF director of research and learning Dr Natalie Byrom: natalie.byrom@TheLEF.org |
|
|
|
Fudging the EUSS deadline problems:
threats to the rule of law
Charlotte O'Brien (AJC Academic Panel member, York University) offers an update on the EU Settlement Scheme:
As the EUSS deadline loomed, the EU Rights & Brexit Hub published a report calling for (and proposing) ‘urgent measures’ to address problems with the EUSS, especially those stemming from sticking to a hard deadline – the 30th June 2021. Now we are past that, those problems have not vanished. Rather, they have been complicated by a scramble to mitigate the effects of bad law with contradictory extra-legal guidance.
Those who made in time applications, but, possibly due to the substantial backlog at the Home Office, had not been awarded a status by the deadline, are, according to the law, obliged to show they: have made an in-time application; were exercising a right to reside under the 2016 Immigration (EEA) Regs on the 31 December; and are currently exercising such a right, and will continue to do so until their status is awarded. If they cannot meet these conditions they do not have a right of residence in the UK. This sets up potentially very arbitrary differences in treatment based on the order in which the Home Office happens to have dealt with applications. Rather than address the flaw in the law, however, the Home Office has apparently adopted a completely different policy – and neglected to tell the public. Instead (as reported on Free Movement) they informed the Safeguarding User Group that “in practice all “in-time” applicants will be treated the same” and that means being “in the same position in respect of access to accommodation, work, benefits and services as they were before the [deadline].”
And for late applications, the divergence between underlying law and practice is even starker. The desire to avoid EU nationals who are eligible to apply for the EUSS, but didn’t manage to do so, being subjected to hostile environment rules, that would penalise, and even criminalise third parties such as landlords and employers, has not led to any change in those rules. Rather, a range of sources (of varying strength) have been used to convey a message of non-enforcement. So we have heard the Home Secretary planning to ‘work with’ employers, and the Prime Minister saying he was "sure the law will be extremely merciful". And the Home Office issued new guidance on, e.g. right to work checks, exhorting employers not to re-check anyone who had passed a right to work check in the past – an oddly explicit ‘see no evil, hear no evil’ approach to avoid damaging consequences. For those employers who, despite doing their best to hold up the veil of ignorance, discover their employees have not applied to the EUSS in time, the guidance outlines a new 28 day warning procedure (only in place for six months) – after which, without employee compliance, dismissal must follow. Having laid down a fairly specific procedure, the guidance then fudges the issue of potential conflicts with underlying legislation, suggesting that “the criminal offence of employing an illegal worker is generally reserved for the most serious cases of non-compliance with the Right to Work Scheme” and that it is “not intended for employers who have employed EEA citizens in good faith.” But the legislation does not provide for a sliding scale of non-compliance, nor does it make any mention of ‘good faith’.
There is also a significant distance between law and practice for late applicants who receive welfare benefits; the law, and advice for decision makers, says those without an EUSS status are unlawful residents – so not eligible to continue to receive benefits. But the Home Office have stated in a select committee, and a press release, that no-one will be automatically kicked off benefits, and have mentioned in a closed meeting a plan for an ‘extra-legislative concession’ for late applicant benefit claimants – a phrase only made public by a participant tweeting about it.
Instead of addressing the mischief – the gappy, unjust and unworkable laws and rules – the government has opted for semi-covert, ad hoc, fire-fighting; adopting policies of partial/selective non-enforcement, articulated in a variety of confusing, contradictory and messy channels. This threatens the rule of law in a host of worrying ways – it is becoming impossible for people to understand their rights and obligations by looking at the law; they will have difficulty relying on protections in non-legislative sources if the guidance changes; and they do not know whether other legal provisions have any effect and should be trusted or observed. Decision-makers will be more confused, employers more at a loss, and vulnerable individuals more disempowered.
|
|
|
PIP and the Value of Further Evidence
A Report by the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman
The Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman, Margaret Kelly, has recommended the need for significant changes In how further evidence is used in assessing and awarding entitlement to Personal Independence Payment (PIP), a benefit for some of the most vulnerable in society.
A 20-month investigation by the Ombudsman found that many opportunities were missed to make the right payment as early as possible in the process. It found that a failure by both the Department for Communities and Capita to seek and use further evidence, including that from medical professionals, meant claimants had to continually challenge the decision, often all the way to Appeal, before the correct decision was made.
The repeated nature of the failures led the Ombudsman to conclude that it constituted ‘systemic maladministration’.
Overall the investigation found:
- Of the 96 cases considered that were designated for a face to face assessment, in only 1 was further evidence requested after the initial review.
- The most common recorded indicator for not requesting further evidence was that ‘it was unlikely evidence would be obtained within the timescale required' – despite the fact that there were 6 weeks available within which to gain such evidence.
- Face-to-face assessments of claimants were often the primary and in some cases the only source of evidence relied upon by the Disability Assessors.
- Capita used information on the number of assessment reports completed and submission times to decide on bonuses for Disability Assessors; these had the potential to inhibit the appropriate use of further evidence in making assessments.
- In the high number of cases where claimants had their PIP decision overturned at the last stage of the Department’s internal process, the investigation found numerous examples of where the evidence relied upon at appeal was either already available to the Disability Assessor or the contact details of those who could provide it were already available.
- Overall despite Capita and the Department’s contention that further evidence has a key role in the PIP process, it was often only at the last stage and following the submission of an appeal to the Tribunal that the role of further evidence was elevated.
- Too many vulnerable claimants may not have been flagged for additional support at the very start of the PIP process because of the Department’s narrow interpretation of its own guidance.
- Many PIP claimants received correspondence from Capita that said all health professionals they had listed had been contacted, when in-fact this was not the case.
- Opportunities for the Department and Capita to systematically improve the quality of assessments and decision making were lost due to an incomplete analysis of the reasons for the overturn of benefit decisions.
The full report can be found here. |
|
|
Discrimination in Digital Immigration Status
Joe Tomlinson (Academic Panel Member; University of York; Public Law Project), Jack Maxwell (Public Law Project) and Alice Welsh (University of York) have produced a new paper:
The UK has recently adopted a policy of granting digital-only proof of immigration status for certain groups of migrants. More than four million individuals are reliant on this form of status and the number is growing. In this article, we argue this policy, as currently operationalised, is unlawful as a result of its discriminatory impact. If it remains unchanged, the roots of digital discrimination in immigration policy and administration will be allowed to spread, with potentially disastrous consequences.
Read the full report here.
|
|
|
|
Scottish Just Law Centre:
Effective Legal Challenges to Equality Act Discrimination
JustRight Scotland established our Scottish Just Law Centre (SJLC) last year, in partnership with Inclusion Scotland and Scottish Trans, with a Strengthening Civil Society grant from the Baring Foundation.
Our aim is to help people legally challenge discriminatory policies and practices of public bodies and service providers, with a view to improving things for them and other affected people who share their protected characteristic.
It has already transpired that it is often possible to use the law as an effective tool for social change without needing to resort to litigation.
Read more >
|
|
|
PHSO Launches Publications Portal
An update from Andrew Medlock, Assistant Director of Strategy & Partnerships, Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman (PHSO), and Advice Sector Panel member:
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is beginning the routine publication of its preliminary and detailed investigations online. This is in line with PHSO’s strategic commitment to continuously improve its transparency over a range of casework decisions. Publishing casework online means that organisations PHSO investigates can easily access the learning from their reports – as well as ensuring wider learning can be used by other organisations too. You will be able to easily access the detailed findings from PHSO’s investigations at a click of a button.
On Thursday 29 April PHSO published its first 16 cases. You can access PHSO’s new Publications Portal via https://decisions.ombudsman.org.uk/.
PHSO will continue to publish cases on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month. They will be publishing a number of new cases as they are closed – initially those closed by their Senior Caseworker teams. This number will grow as PHSO begin publishing decisions from all Caseworkers.
Typically, cases will be published on the portal one month after the case is closed and there is no pending review. Each case will be anonymised so no individuals will be identified. The organisation will be identified to enable them to make improvements where this is relevant.
This is the result of two years of collaborative development with a range of stakeholders to help improve the Portal ready for use. PHSO is eager to hear from everybody to ensure that this is meeting your needs, and you can contact them to provide feedback via their dedicated email address digital@ombudsman.org.uk.
|
|
|
|
The joint Administrative Justice Council and JUSTICE Working Party published its report Reforming Benefits Decision-Making, on 8 July 2021. It makes recommendations aimed at creating a benefits system that prioritises dignity and respect and places the user at its heart.
The benefits decision-making system forms a huge part of the administrative justice landscape in the United Kingdom. However, the system is performing poorly, and can have devastating impacts on peoples’ lives. Individuals often lack knowledge as to their possible entitlements; the application process can be inaccessible and confusing; and many are incorrectly denied benefits to which they are entitled or have their benefits terminated or suspended when they are wrongly sanctioned. Challenging incorrectly made decisions is often stressful and lengthy and many individuals give up when faced with a long fight for their entitlement.
Having sat since April 2020, this report makes 44 recommendations aimed at improving the administrative and procedural aspects of the benefits system. It considers initial decision-making, through to appeals, to ensure that the system works well for everyone, regardless of their digital capability, their health, their disabilities, or their vulnerabilities. With increased unemployment and the full economic impact of the pandemic still yet to be realised, the need to ensure a fair benefits system that is accessible and makes timely and accurate decisions is greater than ever.
To watch a recording of the launch event, see here.
For the report and it's recommendations, see here.
For more information on the Working Party, see here.
|
|
|
AJC Report Launch – Access to social welfare advice in a hospital setting: integration of services
On 23 June 2021, the AJC hosted a webinar to launch its report ‘Access to social welfare advice in a hospital setting: integration of services’.
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant effect on the delivery of advice in England. The lack of face-to-face encounters, together with remote delivery, have highlighted the gaps in access to advice and access to justice for vulnerable groups who require help with a variety of social welfare problems. The role of the NHS has never been as important, and the extent to which health and wellbeing is a vital component of the economy has been thrust under the microscope. Based on a pilot project that focused on existing partnership hubs where welfare benefits advice was provided within hospital settings, the report considers the provision of early multifaceted advice and guidance for those who are most vulnerable in society.
Hosted by Heidi Bancroft (Secretary to the AJC), attendees heard from the following speakers: Michael Bell (Chairman of Croydon Health Services NHS Trust and Director of MBARC), Nick Wright (Manager, Citizens Advice at Great Ormond Street Hospital) and Marie Copple (East Midlands Haemoglobinopathy Network Lead Nurse, Leicester Royal Infirmary Hospital). They also heard from two people directly involved in the project, Dr. Naomi Creutzfeldt (Professor in Socio-Legal Studies, Westminster University and Co-Chair of our Academic Panel) and Philip Worrall (Research Fellow in Management Science, Westminster University and Health Innovation Ecosystem).
The recording is available on the AJC website here.
|
|
|
Annual Report
The AJC published its Annual Report 2020-2021 earlier this month. This annual report sets out our progress over the year against our strategic objectives.
Our focus has been on first instance decision-making (by public bodies); the impact of COVID-19 on the administrative justice system; the rapid roll-out of the courts and tribunals modernisation programme; ombudsman reform; and the role of the advice sector in the provision of social welfare law.
Our research into the above-mentioned areas is detailed in the Report here.
|
|
|
AJC Adult Social Care Roundtable
Tuesday 20 July 2021
The event was chaired by Lindsey Poole (Advice Sector Panel Chair; Advice Services Alliance). The aim of the event was to consider and discuss pressure points and good practice in the adult social care process, from initial local authority application, and on to the various redress mechanisms available, including local authority complaints/appeals procedures, legal redress and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
Speakers included -
- Maureen Morris (former Chair of Sunderland Parent Carers Forum)
- Anna Davies (Independent Age)
- Penny Gosai (Waltham Forest Citizens Advice)
- Stuart Purcell (National Complaints Managers' Group)
- Kari Gerstheimer (Access Social Care)
- Donna Campbell (Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman)
Delegates were invited from across the AJC's panels and further afield, including representatives from academia, advice organisations and the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
Our Deputy Chair, Rosemary Agnew (Scottish Public Services Ombudsman) offered a closing summary.
A paper on the event will be produced.
|
|
|
|
Comparative Administrative Justice
in the UK
Dr Sarah Nason (AJC Academic Panel; Bangor University) and Dr Huw Pritchard (AJC Academic Panel; Cardiff University) hosted this discussion event on 14 July 2021.
The event aimed to bring together those interested in considering and collaborating on future projects that compared issues of administrative justice across one or more devolved nation.
Representatives from academia, advice organisations and complaints bodies pooled ideas on areas of interest.
Anyone interested in being involved or finding out more should contact Sarah s.nason@bangor.ac.uk or Huw PritchardH3@cardiff.ac.uk
|
|
The Administrative Justice Council held its second and final meeting of the year on 7 July 2021. This meeting was the first to be Chaired by the new AJC Chair, the Rt Honourable Sir Keith Lindblom, the Senior President of Tribunals. The Council heard the following presentations:
- Dr Natalie Byrom spoke about the Legal Education Foundation’s evaluation of the impact of covid on tribunal hearings (see separate piece above);
- HMCTS updated the Council on their access to justice project and Asylum and Immigration Evaluation;
- Margaret Kelly, the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman introduced their Own Initiative Investigation into Personal Independence Payments (see separate piece above);
- The Pro Bono Panel Economics Unit gave an update on the joint AJC report on DWP First Instance Decision-making in Disability Benefits, due to be published in September; and
- Robert Thomas, Co-Chair of the Academic Panel informed the Council of the AJC Windrush Working Group’s findings and recommendations.
The Council also discussed COVID recovery from the across the sectors and jurisdictions within administrative justice. The minutes for the meeting will be published on the AJC website shortly.
The Council next meets in January 2022. |
|
|
|
|
