Page 130 - Reforming Benefits Decision-Making -(updated - August 2021)

Low Commission asked advisors what factors made the most difference to an
appellant’s chances of success on appeal. Obtaining supporting evidence from
a health/social care professional scored the highest. This is often the staple
work of welfare rights agencies who understand the statutory descriptors and
380
evidential requirements. Being accompanied or represented by an adviser
also scored highly (67%). Although being represented by a lawyer did not
(17%). The report therefore found that whilst legal representation at the
381
Tribunal was unnecessary, the role of trained and highly specialist welfare
rights advisers, especially when present at the Tribunal and looking out for the
appellant’s interests, is helpful and often essential.
382

4.69 Research conducted by the EHRC in 2018 found that participants who had
tried to represent themselves at tribunal hearings for welfare benefits issues
largely found the process complex and intimidating, particularly as many
were unwell at the time. Even if they were successful in their appeals, they did
not feel that it was a quick or straightforward process to navigate. 383

4.70 These findings were reflected in the views of Working Party members and
consultees, who felt that although having legal representation at a benefits
appeal was not necessary, having someone with knowledge of the benefits and
appeals system was preferable, and sometimes essential, especially for
vulnerable clients for whom the process can be particularly stressful and
intimidating. As discussed in Chapter 2 some appellants with mental health
conditions may also have difficulties self-reporting the way their disability
affects their fitness to work. Having a representative is therefore important to
ensuring a claim is effectively articulated.

4.71 Our recommendation above supporting the establishment of an advice portal
will make it easier for HMCTS to signpost appellants to benefits advice. We

380 The Low Commission, Follow up report (see n. 3 above) p. 41.
381 Much of the advice sectors’ representational and advice work in social security tribunals pre-
LASPO, although delivered under legal aid contracts, was provided by specialist advisers rather than
qualified lawyers.
382 The Low Commission, Follow up report (see n. 3 above) p.41.
383 J. Organ and J. Sigafoos, The impact of LASPO on routes to justice (see n. 320 above).

121