Page 99 - Reforming Benefits Decision-Making -(updated - August 2021)

to participate. To that end we are pleased to hear that the Tribunal is inviting
appellants into hearing centres to use IT equipment and internet there, if they
do not have access to their own. In addition, the Tribunal has technical staff
who provide technical support for appellants prior to and during the hearing
and a digital support officer to assist tribunal members.

3.52 HMCTS conducted an implementation review of remote hearings during the
early stages of the pandemic to quickly develop and improve key audio-video
processes that were put in place. We understand that HMCTS is conducting
an in-depth evaluation of the use of remote hearings during the pandemic. The
evaluation is focussing on user experiences and perceptions. We welcome this
evaluation, and the results should be used to inform the use of remote
hearings post-pandemic. However, it is important that any evaluation also
includes data on outcomes of different types of hearings.

3.53 Given the varying suitability of different hearing types for appellants,
depending on their individual needs, both medical and in terms of access to
space and technology, we believe that appellants should be given a choice
about the type of hearing they have. To that end we welcome the changes to
the appeal form for PIP, ESA and UC, which now asks appellants to select the
types of hearing that are suitable for them, with options for telephone, video
and face-to-face. The form also briefly sets out the requirements for each type
of hearing i.e. for telephone – “you’ll need somewhere quiet and private to
speak”, video - “you’ll need access to a computer or mobile device with a
good internet speed and somewhere quiet and private to speak” or face-to-face
– “you will need to travel to the hearing in person”. The form could also be
updated to include the possibility of going to a hearing centre to use the IT
equipment there for a remote hearing. We also welcome the toolkits being
developed by HMCTS to help staff and the judiciary better understand the
circumstances in which remote hearings may not be appropriate.

90