Low Commission welfare rights survey: decisions and redress
James Sandbach, campaigns and research manager at the Low Commission, writes:
Our systems for reviewing, challenging or correcting individual state decisions on citizen’s entitlement, for example, benefit claims, are going through profound change. Reforms to judicial review, legal aid scope, tribunal procedures and internal reviews, alongside developments in public services online technologies, are changing the landscape of how citizens can get mistakes put right when dealing with public authorities. The range of legal and non-legal redress routes – usually referred to as the ‘administrative justice system’ – extends from decision-making subject to internal reviews, complaints to public sector ombudsmen and appeals to courts and tribunals.
Increasingly, government is placing confidence in ‘internal review’ processes, rather than external and independent review and appeal procedures. The clearest example of this approach in practice is the introduction of ‘mandatory reconsideration’ in welfare decisions (under the Welfare Reform Act 2012). But just how robust is this internal review route? How can we ensure that reviews take place thoroughly, at arms length from decision-makers, and operate on the basis of objective fairness? What information and advice do claimants now need to get a fair hearing, and how accessible are second-stage appeal and tribunal procedures as a result of these changes?
The Low Commission is undertaking a survey on these issues, drawing on front-line evidence from welfare rights advisers. It would be hugely helpful for all professionals, volunteers and advisers involved in welfare rights work to complete our short survey (see below).
The issue is very important, not just for the ‘rule of law’, but for any large servicedelivering organisation, whether public or private, it is about ensuring that ‘customers’ receive what they are entitled to and get a good service, and that there is accountability, feedback and learning when things go wrong. In the private sector, the best companies take complaints, including those progressed through ombudsmen, arbitrators or the courts, as a valuable source of market intelligence and customer feedback, and are sensitive to reputational impact. Yet public sector leaders all too often fail to learn how to treat complaints and appeals as important sources of intelligence and learning about what is really happening on the front line. And, in an increasingly mixed economy of contracted-out or privately operated public services, it can be difficult to know exactly where accountability lies, and what checks and balances operate over millions of decisions that affect people’s lives. This is especially the case with welfare benefits decision-making.