Tel:
Fax:
Email:
Web:
(01) 847 7804
(01) 847 7563
[email protected]
www.nclc.ie
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair? A report commissioned by Northside Community Law Centre.
Northside Civic Centre,
Coolock, Dublin 17.
The Social Welfare Appeals
System: Accessible & Fair?
A report commissioned by Northside Community Law Centre.
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
The Social Welfare Appeals
System: Accessible & Fair?
A report commissioned by Northside Community Law Centre
Ciairín de Buis
© Northside Community Law Centre, 2005.
1
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
Foreword & Acknowledgements
Contents
Northside Community Law Centre (NCLC) is an independent community-based legal centre. We work
to protect and develop the legal, social and economic rights of individuals and groups. NCLC provides
free information advice and representation to individuals and groups who otherwise would not be able to
access legal services and we work to empower the community through education, research and campaigns.
NCLC this year celebrates 30 years of service to the community of north-east Dublin.
As a law centre we are concerned that justice and the law should be accessible by all members of the
community and particularly by the most vulnerable members of society. The social welfare service provides
Executive Summary
5
Representation ........................................................................................................................................................................ 5
Stare Decisis .............................................................................................................................................................................. 6
International Context .............................................................................................................................................................. 6
Statistical Overview ................................................................................................................................................................ 6
Survey Of Recent Appellants ............................................................................................................................................... 8
Qualitative Interviews .......................................................................................................................................................... 10
Advice & Advocacy Services .............................................................................................................................................. 10
Key Issues & Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 11
Summary Of Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 12
Section 1 - Introduction
13
Section 2 - Overview
16
vital financial support for those at risk of, or, experiencing poverty in Irish society. An independent, fair
and accessible appeals mechanism is a fundamental part of any social welfare service. Our work in
advising and representing those with welfare problems prompted us to investigate the appeals system.
In 2003 we received funding from the Combat Poverty Agency to carry out a review of the accessibility,
effectiveness, independence and fairness of the social welfare appeals system. This report is the result of
this task. It recommends changes to increase access for appellants to independent information, advice and
representation and to make the system more accessible, particularly for the most vulnerable. We hope that
this report will empower the community and influence social policy and effect positive changes. We also
hope that this report will influence and inspire further research in this area of welfare, law and social policy.
Many people and organisations have helped us to complete this report. The Combat Poverty Agency funded
this research and contributed to the publication costs. We owe a great debt of thanks to Ciairín de Buis,
the author of the work, to Helen Fitzgerald for statistical analysis, and to the Steering Committee; Catherine
Hickey (Free Legal Advice Centres), Robert J. Lynch (Irish National Organisation for the Unemployed), Victoria
Sutherland (Combat Poverty Agency), Gerry Whyte (Trinity College Dublin) and Mairide Woods (Comhairle) for
their important contribution. The Social Welfare Appeals Office are especially deserving of our gratitude for
their assistance and co-operation and thanks also to the Department of Social & Family Affairs. We are thankful
to the Bar Council of Ireland for contributing to the cost of publishing this report. We would like to thank City
Centre (Dublin) Citizens Information Service, FLAC (Free Legal Advice Centres), Irish National Organisation of
the Unemployed (INOU), Northside Centre for the Unemployed and the Larkin Centre for the Unemployed for
their co-operation and all the appellants who took the time and effort to respond to our questionnaire and
interviews. Thanks also to Eilis Brennan, BL and Matt Whitby for their work on this publication.
NCLC believes in the dignity of each individual member of society. We are committed to working with the
community for the creation of a just and tolerant society.
Tom Brennan, Chairman
Social Welfare Appeals Office ........................................................................................................................................... 16
Decisions & Appeals Process ............................................................................................................................................ 18
Advice & Representation .................................................................................................................................................... 20
International Context ............................................................................................................................................................ 22
Australia – Social Security Appeals Tribunal ................................................................................................................. 23
United Kingdom – Appeals Service ................................................................................................................................. 25
United States Of America ................................................................................................................................................... 28
Denmark ................................................................................................................................................................................... 29
Statistical Overview .............................................................................................................................................................. 31
Summary .................................................................................................................................................................................. 38
Section 3 - Survey Of Appellants
39
General Information ............................................................................................................................................................. 40
Outcome / Category Of Payment .................................................................................................................................... 42
Representation ...................................................................................................................................................................... 43
Prior To Appeal ...................................................................................................................................................................... 45
Oral Hearing ............................................................................................................................................................................ 54
General Comments ............................................................................................................................................................... 55
Changes To Social Welfare Appeals System ................................................................................................................. 57
Summary .................................................................................................................................................................................. 59
Section 4 - Qualitative Interviews
60
Interviewee 1: Disablement Benefit ................................................................................................................................ 60
Interviewee 2: One Parent Family Payment .................................................................................................................. 61
Interviewee 3: One Parent Family Payment .................................................................................................................. 62
Interviewee 4: Disability Benefit ....................................................................................................................................... 63
Interviewee 5: Disability Benefit ....................................................................................................................................... 63
Interviewee 6: Disability Allowance ................................................................................................................................. 64
Common Themes .................................................................................................................................................................. 65
Summary .................................................................................................................................................................................. 68
Section 5 - Advice & Advocacy Services
69
Organisational Issues ........................................................................................................................................................... 69
Barriers To Taking Appeals ................................................................................................................................................. 71
Appeals Process .................................................................................................................................................................... 74
Summary .................................................................................................................................................................................. 76
Colin Daly, Managing Solicitor
2
3
NCLC is funded by the Department of Social & Family Affairs.
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
Section 6 - Key Issues & Recommendations
77
Information & Communication .......................................................................................................................................... 77
Structure & Independence Of S.W.A.O. ......................................................................................................................... 82
Representation ...................................................................................................................................................................... 83
Disability Payments .............................................................................................................................................................. 85
Accessibility ............................................................................................................................................................................. 87
Summary .................................................................................................................................................................................. 89
Appendix 1 - Survey Questionnaire
91
Executive Summary
The Social Welfare Appeals Office was established in 1990, on foot of a recommendation contained in the
Report of the Commission on Social Welfare. It operates separately from the Department of Social and
Family Affairs with separate premises and staff. However, the Social Welfare Appeals Office, while stated
to be independent, comes within the remit of the Department of Social and Family Affairs and is staffed by
civil servants. Irrespective of whether the Social Welfare Appeals Office is independent in practice, it may be
open to the perception that it is not independent in its structures.
Appendix 2 - Advice & Advocacy Services Organisation
94
Appeals are made in writing to the Social Welfare Appeals Office. On receipt of an appeal, the Appeals
Bibliography
96
Office refers the case back to the Department of Social and Family Affairs for comment and consideration.
The case may then be revised, particularly if new evidence has been put forward in the written appeal, or
put forward for consideration by an Appeals Officer.
The Appeals Officer can decide the case on the basis of the written evidence presented or may hold an oral
hearing. Appeal Hearings are intended to be informal and private. Hearings are attended by the Appeals
Officer, the applicant (and any representative/advocate) and relevant witnesses. Depending on the appeal,
Assessors may also be present. Assessors may advise the Appeals Officer, but the decision ultimately lies
with the Appeals Officer.
Representation:
Applicants appealing a decision to the Social Welfare Appeals Office are not entitled as of right to have legal
(or other) representation present at the appeal (although, in practice, the Appeals Officer always allows an
advocate/representative to attend). The Civil Legal Aid Scheme is not available for the purposes of a social
welfare appeal; however the Appeals Officer has the discretion to grant expenses to a solicitor who appears.
Anecdotally, the presence of a representative/advocate has significant impact when taking an appeal.
This is supported by international research - Research in the UK indicates that the probability of success when
taking a social security appeal increased from 30% to 40% when the applicant had a representative. (Genn,
Acknowledgement
“The Combat Poverty Agency has supported this
project as part of its Working Against Poverty Grants
Scheme”
H. and Genn, Y., 1989) Furthermore, the research concluded that the type of representation is important
and where the case involved a social security appeal that independent advice and information organisations
who specialised in social welfare had the greatest impact on the outcome of appeals. This was supported in
the qualitative research completed both with individual appellants and independent information and advice
Disclaimer
organisations providing representation to social welfare appellants.
“That the views expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Combat
Poverty Agency”
4
5
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
Stare Decisis:
Outcome of Appeals, 1998 - 2003.
One of the difficulties experienced by anyone wishing to take an appeal is the problem of working within a
vacuum. Appeals Officers decisions are not currently published leading to an absence of any system of stare
decisis. While case-studies are now published in the SWAO Annual Report the publication of a more detailed
1998
database of decisions (and rationale for those decisions) would increase the perception of transparency and
understanding of the decision making process.
International Context:
1999
2000
When examining any adjudication or appeals mechanism, it is always useful to put it within an international
context. There are a number of appeals systems which are of direct interest when looking at the Irish system.
The Australian Security Appeals Tribunal is comparable in structure to the Social Welfare Appeals Office.
2001
2002
At “arms length” from its home-department it is a quasi-judicial structure, providing informal hearings aimed
at ensuring an accessible mechanism. There are a number of crucial differences which ensure a greater
2003
perception of independence and transparency than with the Irish Appeals Office.
Allowed
Partly Allowed
Revised Deciding
Officer Decision
Disallowed
Withdrawn
Total
2,351
845
3,245
5,850
1,699
15,988
17%
6%
23%
42%
12%
100%
2,671
711
3,516
5,661
1,838
14,397
19%
5%
24%
39%
13%
100%
2,956
604
3,788
7,111
2,601
17,060
17%
4%
22%
42%
15%
100%
3,166
505
3,822
6,779
2,253
16,525
19%
3%
23%
41%
14%
100%
2,757
485
3,854
6,902
1,836
15,834
17%
3%
24%
44%
12%
100%
2,798
498
3,738
6,612
2,403
16,049
17%
3%
23%
41%
15%
100%
Table 1: Outcome of Appeals by Category, 1998 - 2003
The recently established UK Appeals Service also shares a number of similarities with the Irish system.
However, it is a judicial tribunal with independent Tribunal members; while it has a close relationship
During 2003, the average time to process a social welfare appeal was 21 weeks. When briefly comparing
and communication structures with the relevant agencies and departments, it has a far greater level of
the proportion of recipients to appeals received by programme type it can be seen that Illness, Disability and
independence.
Caring account for a disproportionate number of appeals received by the Social Welfare Appeals Office.
The American appeals mechanism is briefly summarised. Essentially the American system has a number of
60
Weekly Recipients
layers of internal review before recourse to the civil courts.
Appeals Received
50
The Danish system is an arms length independent review board – which bears many similarities to the Irish
system. However, one notable difference is that it does not hold oral hearings. Decisions are reached on the
40
basis of written evidence and the participation of lay-judges and medical experts.
30
Statistical Overview
The numbers of appeals received by the Social Welfare Appeals Office ranged from 14,000 to 18,000.
20
The total number of appeals received during 2003 (15,224) was the first increase in appeals received since
2000 (17,650). In contrast, there has been a steady increase in the number of recipients of weekly social
10
welfare payments over the same time period; with the exception of 2000, when there was a decrease in
the number of recipients.
0
Old Age
Payments
Widows,
Widowers &
1-Parent Family
Payments
Child
Related
Payments
Illness,
Disability &
Caring
Unemployment
Supports
Supplementary
Welfare
Allowances
Other
Chart 1: Percentage Breakdown of Weekly Recipients compared to Percentage Breakdown of Appeals
Received, 2003.
6
7
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
Survey of Recent Appellants
Only eight respondents stated that they had a representative/advocate during the oral hearing. Of these,
In conducting this research, it was felt that the most valuable source of information would be those who had
Northside Community Law Centre represented 2 respondents, 3 were represented by family members and
recently engaged with the appeals system themselves. To this end postal questionnaires were distributed to
1 was represented by a friend (details were not given by the remaining 2 respondents). Given that these
appellants whose appeal had been “closed” by the Social Welfare Appeals Office during a two-week period
figures are so small (and it was unlikely that those represented by family members/friends were represented
in July 2004, thereby ensuring a directly representative sample group.
by experienced advocates), it is difficult to draw any reliable conclusions from the survey regarding the
impact of representation.
The responses were balanced between men (44.5%) and women (55.5%), and were geographically spread
across the country. There was also a representative spread across the different age groups and scheme type,
Respondents were asked whether they understood the initial decision – 81 responded positively, 64
which is reflective of the categories of appeals received within the Appeals Office in 2003. While there were some
responded that they did not understand the initial decision. While this means that the majority (56%) of those
variations between categories of payment type there were no significant differences between the numbers of
who responded to the question stated that they understood the initial decision, there is still a significant
appeals received by the Social Welfare Appeals Office and the survey responses (see Chart 2 below).
majority (44% of those who responded) who did not.
The majority of respondents (121 or 85% of those who responded to that question) replied that they were
Survey Respondents
Appeals Received (Appeals Office)
50
informed of their right to appeal in writing despite the fact that all unsuccessful applicants are informed in
45
writing of their right to appeal, 29 (19% of all respondents or 41% of those who answered the question)
40
respondents replied they were informed verbally of their right to appeal.
35
30
Respondents were asked whether they went anywhere for information or advice following the initial
25
decision. The majority of respondents (82) didn’t do so, primarily as they were unaware that such services
20
were available. Only 3 respondents replied that they did not seek information or advice as they were familiar
15
with the appeals system, 28 respondents replied that they had enough information. Other reasons given for
10
not seeking information or advice included a lack of money to pay for legal advice. Sources of information
and advice were wide-ranging –one-third of those who sought advice (33% or 21 respondents) sought
5
0
information from a Citizens Information Centre.
Old Age
Payments
Widows,
Widowers &
1-Parent Family
Payments
Child
Related
Payments
Illness
& Disability
Unemployment Supplementary
Supports
Welfare
Allowances
Other
Over half the respondents (52% / 77 respondents) replied that they attended an oral hearing for their
appeal, while only 10% (8 respondents) of those had a representative/advocate during the oral hearing.
Chart 2: Breakdown of Appeals by Category
8
26% of those who attended an oral hearing did not understand everything during the appeal.
More than half (51%) of the survey respondents had a positive outcome (i.e. Allowed or Partially Allowed)
43% of respondents replied that they found the social welfare appeals system fair, 39% responded that they
to their appeal. Respondents were asked why they thought their appeal was allowed or disallowed. Half
found it easy to use. Improvements suggested by respondents include:
of those whose appeal was allowed or partially allowed replied that new information/evidence was the
g
More thorough medical examinations,
reason for their appeal being allowed, 41% of those whose appeal was allowed or partially allowed felt that
g
Explanations as to rationale for decisions,
preparation/presentation of their case led to a successful outcome. Whereas amongst respondents whose
g
Greater provision of information,
appeal was disallowed, 29% felt it was due to poor preparation/presentation of their case, and 25% felt that
g
Improvement in interpersonal skills,
their appeal was disallowed due to a lack of new evidence/information.
g
Speedier appeals process,
g
Greater communication and increased accessibility.
9
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
Qualitative Interviews
When asked to identify issues facing any individual taking a social welfare appeal, there were a number of
Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were held with 6 appellants (interviewees) all of whom had been
common themes identified by each organisation:
represented during their oral hearing.
g
Knowledge of System and Procedural Issues,
There were a number of common themes and issues arising repeatedly during the course of the interviews.
g
Access to Information and Files,
Interviewees were unanimous that representation affected the outcome of their appeal. It was also felt
g
Communication Abilities,
that the system is inaccessible and not user-friendly, both when lodging an appeal and during the appeal
g
Literacy Skills and/or Language Barriers.
process. The delay between lodging an appeal and the oral hearing, and the financial difficulties this can
cause, was also highlighted.
Overall, the Social Welfare Appeals Office was regarded by the community and voluntary organisations as
being easy to work with, relatively accessible and providing a reasonably fair service. Organisations praised
Questions were also raised about the independence and impartiality of the appeals process. Interviewees
the Appeals Officers as being fair and trying to put people at ease during the hearings. However, there were
felt that reports from Medical Assessors were regarded by Appeals Officers as binding rather than evidential.
a numbers of areas where the Social Welfare Appeals Office was criticised, including:
They did not feel that the same regard was given to reports from the appellant’s doctors. Some Medical
Assessments were described as cursory in nature and interviewees felt that some Medical Assessors may
g
Delays,
not necessarily have specialist knowledge in certain areas to make an informed decision.
g
Structural Independence,
g
Medical Assessors and examinations,
Finally, the impact of the appeals process on the individual was regarded by some interviewees as demeaning
g
Impact of Representative/advocate,
and humiliating. In the light of the issues raised, it is interesting to note that all of the interviewees had
g
Decisions not being published.
representation at the appeal hearing and had favourable outcomes at the appeal hearings.
Key Issues & Recommendations
A number of changes were suggested by interviewees to create a more accessible and fair Social Welfare
The users of the social welfare appeals system are particularly vulnerable – there can be many barriers to
Appeals System. These suggestions fell within a range of categories:
participation in the appeals process: literacy issues and language barriers, financial difficulties, social issues,
comprehension difficulties and intimidation by the system itself. Many of those who take an appeal are
g
Structure of Appeals System,
unaware of the existence of independent information and advice services, most who do engage with the
g
Information and Communication,
appeals system do so in the absence of independent information and advice, and the majority do not have
g
Accessibility.
a representative during the appeal hearing.
Advice & Advocacy Services
A total of 17 recommendations are made, aimed at improving the social welfare appeals system. Five
Meetings were held with representatives from six organisations providing independent information, advice
key recommendations are identified. The table below summarises these recommendations, the key
and representation for those taking a social welfare appeal. No organisation provided a fully universal
recommendations are highlighted.
service in the sense that all organisations stated that they would only provide representation/advocacy
where the appeal was reasonable. All organisations felt that the number of cases being brought to them
was increasing. All organisations stressed that the presence of a representative/advocate was likely to be of
significant influence in an appeal hearing.
10
11
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
Table 2: Summary of Recommendations
Section 1 – Introduction
1
Further research, exploring the feasibility of implementing mechanisms of verbally informing applicants of the
Departmental decision should be undertaken.
“From birth, through life to death, our system of social supports administered by my Department
2
A “Plain English Officer” should be employed within the Social Welfare Appeals Office.
helps approximately one in three citizens at any one time.” 1
3
The Social Welfare Appeals Office, in consultation with relevant stakeholders (Department of Social and Family Affairs,
Appellants and Independent Information and Advice services) should design and publish a straightforward Step-byStep Guide to taking a social welfare appeal. This should be forwarded to all unsuccessful applicants when they are
informed of the initial decision.
4
A video/DVD showing a “mock appeal” should be produced, providing a mechanism of conveying the structure and
format of appeals hearings.
5
All publications should be made available in other languages as required. Similarly, interpreters and translators should
be employed, when necessary, to ensure language is not a barrier to progressing an appeal.
Statistics Office estimated the overall population to be 3.9 million. Overall, more than one third of the Irish
population benefit from some form of social welfare payment.
6
Unsuccessful applicants should be provided with the (national) Citizens Information Lo-Call number and contact
details of Citizens Information Centres and other Information and Advice Services locally. Unsuccessful applicants can
then choose to contact the appropriate organisation to obtain information and advice. In this context, consideration
also needs to be given to ensuring that such organisations are adequately funded to provide these services.
7
On being informed of their right to appeal, unsuccessful applicants should be clearly informed of their right to access
their file and any relevant information. The importance of having this information for an appeal should be explained.
Subsequently, on lodging an appeal, an appellant should be reminded of her/his right to access their file and other
information, and provided with a “tick-form” whereby they can request such information.
8
The Social Welfare Appeals Office should publish records of all appeals, the outcome of those appeals and the
rationale for those decisions. These records should be published in a format protecting the anonymity of the parties
involved, and readily available as a matter of public record.
9
The Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Social Welfare Appeals Office should individually publish Codes
of Practice/Charters, incorporating the right to be treated with dignity and respect.
10
Further research should be completed, identifying the most appropriate alternative appeals structure to protect
and enhance the independence and perception of independence of the appeals process. In the interim, in order to
strengthen the perception of independence, all publications (including the Social Welfare Appeals Office website)
should be produced independently of the Department.
11
All appellants should be entitled to independent advice and information. Guidelines/Criteria should be developed to
ensure that all appellants have access to representation when necessary. To ensure a quality service, Information and
Advice providers need to be properly resourced and financed. Appellants should be entitled to have a representative/
advocate attend an oral hearing.
12
An independent panel of doctors and specialists should be appointed to provide medical assessments.
13
Further research needs to be completed exploring the extent and scope of the role of Medical Assessors.
14
As currently applied, the concept of “Fitness to Work” needs to be broadened beyond a medical model to encompass
the background, experience and qualifications of the appellant.
15
Appellants should be entitled to lodge appeals in writing, electronically, in person or by telephone.
16
Appeals Officers should attend oral hearings in alternative locations such as hospitals/individual’s homes where it is
not possible for the appellant to travel to a SWAO venue.
17
The role of (Employment) Assessors should be reviewed.
Mary Coughlan, TD,, Minister for Social and Family Affairs.
Social Welfare payments and supports form a major part of the services provided by the Irish State. More
than 1.4 million people benefited from a social welfare payment in 2002.2 In the same year the Central
The financial implications of this are not insignificant, social welfare expenditure totalled E9,520M in 2002 or
28.8% of gross current government expenditure.3 In this context, it is interesting to note that while the overall
amount of expenditure has more than doubled over the past ten years, the proportion of expenditure on
social welfare as a percentage of gross current government expenditure has not increased as significantly,
rising from 27.9% to 28.8% in the same period.4 In fact, when viewed as a percentage of gross domestic
product, social welfare expenditure has decreased from 10.7% in 1992 to 7.3% in 2002.5
Social Welfare Expenditure as a percentage of:
Year
Total Social Welfare
Expenditure*
(Em)
Gross Current
Government
Expenditure
Net Current
Government
Expenditure
Gross
Domestic
Product
1993
4,607
27.9
34.5
10.7
1994
4,775
27.4
33.7
10.3
1995
5,332
28.7
34.7
10.1
1996
5,558
28.5
34.5
9.6
1997
5,744
26.7
32.3
8.6
1998
6,046
27.1
33.1
7.8
1999
6,283
26.0
31.9
7.1
2000
6,713
25.9
32.3
6.5
2001
7,842
26.2
38.4
6.9
2002
9,520
28.8
40.8
7.3
Table 2: Social Welfare Expenditure, 1993 to 2002.
* Includes the full cost of Supplementary Welfare Allowance which is administered by the Health Boards.
From 1995, total Social Welfarde Expenditure includes expenditure on the Redundancy and Insolvency
Schemes which are administered by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
Source: Department of Social & Family Affairs.
1 Department of Social & Family Affairs, Annual Report, 2002. Foreword. 2 1,460,595 people were beneficiaries of payments in 2002
– Statistical Information on Social Welfare Services, 2002. 3 Source: Department of Social & Family Affairs, Statistical Information on Social
Welfare Services, 2002. See Table 1 for further information. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid.
12
13
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
Given the vast amount of people directly affected by the implementation of the social welfare code, it is
Section 2 – Overview
unavoidable that significant numbers will be unhappy with the original decision regarding their entitlements
This section outlines the social welfare appeals system and the mechanism involved in taking an appeal.
and may wish to appeal. Similarly, in terms of judicial impact, it is perhaps inevitable that case-law has
Relevant literature and publications (and their analysis of specific issues) are referred to as they arise. Appeals
been of primary impact in the area of procedures governing the determination of claims and appeals.6
systems in four other jurisdictions have been outlined and elements of particular relevance to the Irish
Indeed, as highlighted by Whyte “Judicial application of the principles of natural and constitutional justice
system highlighted. The work of the Social Welfare Appeals Office is then explored in a statistical context.
has significantly improved the legal position of the welfare claimant who wishes to challenge a departmental
decision affecting his or her rights under the welfare code”.7
Section 3 – Survey of Recent Appellants
Key findings from the survey of recent appellants are set out. A postal questionnaire was distributed to 485
For many people attending an oral hearing in the Social Welfare Appeals Office, this will be their first time
appellants whose appeal had been “closed” by the Social Welfare Appeals Office during a two-week period
in a “tribunal-type arena”, their first time giving evidence in a hearing and may be their first time challenging
in July 2004, a total of 147 appellants responded (A copy of the questionnaire is contained in Appendix 1).
the decision of an official of a government department. Often they are doing so in an information-vacuum.
There is currently no step-by-step guide to taking a social welfare appeal published by the Department of
Section 4 – Qualitative Interviews
Social and Family Affairs or Social Welfare Appeals Office, and while an applicant is informed in writing of
Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were held with 6 appellants (interviewees) all of whom had been
their right to appeal, they may not understand the process of taking an appeal.
represented during their oral hearing. Common themes and issues were identified and explored, a number
of recommendations for change were made by those interviewed.
There are two main Social Welfare Appeals Systems within the Irish system:
Section 5 – Advice & Advocacy Services
g
The Social Welfare Appeals Office (which deals with most appeals for payments administered by the
Meetings were held with six organisations providing information and advocacy services to clients wishing
Department of Social and Family Affairs and also hears appeals in respect of the non-discretionary
to take an appeal to the Social Welfare Appeals Office. These organisations were able to provide a
elements of the Supplementary Welfare Allowance scheme), and,
unique overview of the appeals system and the particular issues and challenges present for social welfare
appellants.
g
A separate appeals system operated by the regional Health Boards relating to the discretionary elements
of the Supplementary Welfare Allowance Scheme.
Section 6 – Key Issues & Recommendations
Key issues and themes arising across the different areas of research are identified and examined.
Where the payments/benefits are as a result of a non-statutory scheme (Free Schemes/Back-to-Work
Recommendations arising from the research are made and prioritised.
Schemes) there is no formal appeal system, however it should be possible to have a case reviewed by a
more senior official within the Department.
As the vast majority of social welfare appeals are processed by the Social Welfare Appeals Office, the
primary focus of this particular piece of research will be on the Social Welfare Appeals Office. The research
is divided into a number of sections:
6 Whyte, G., Social Inclusion and the Legal System: Public Interest Law in Ireland, Institute of Public Administration, 2002. At p. 124. 7 Ibid.
14
15
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
Section 2 – Overview
“The Department is committed to the maintenance of a formalised, accessible and transparent
system of appeal/review for customers who are dissatisfied with decisions and entitlements.” 8
This section outlines the social welfare appeals system and the mechanism involved in taking an appeal.
Relevant literature and publications (and their analysis of specific issues) are referred to as they arise. While
the relevant legislation and case-law is referred to throughout this section, a detailed examination of social
welfare law has not been undertaken as it would not be particularly appropriate to this project, and has
already been done in some detail elsewhere.9 Appeals systems in four other jurisdictions have been outlined
and elements of particular relevance to the Irish system highlighted. The work of the Social Welfare Appeals
Office is then explored in a statistical context.
Social Welfare Appeals Office
The Social Welfare Appeals Office was established in 1990,10 on foot of a recommendation contained
in the Report of the Commission on Social Welfare.11 Much criticism had been levelled at the previous
appeals system due to the perceived lack of independence and transparency.12 The mission of the Appeals
Office is to “provide an independent, accessible and fair appeals service for entitlement to social welfare
payments and to deliver that service in a prompt and courteous manner”.13 It operates separately from the
Department of Social and Family Affairs with separate premises and staff.
The establishment of the Social Welfare Appeals Office did bring changes to the appeals system. Appeals
are now lodged with the Chief Appeals Officer (rather than the Minister) and the Chief Appeals Officer must
lodge an Annual Report with the Houses of the Oireachtas. Nevertheless, many of these changes were
minor in nature. Cousins (1995) states that the changes were “essentially a reform of the existing system
rather than a radically new approach and were aimed at emphasising the independence of the appeals
officers”.14 He goes on to state that the new system means that “There is greater emphasis on the provision
of information and reasons are to be given for all unsuccessful decisions. However, the personnel of the
appeals office remained the same and there was no change in relation to the holding of oral hearings”.15
Furthermore, it is questionable whether the Social Welfare Appeals Office is truly independent in its
structure. The Social Welfare Appeals Office, while stated to be independent, comes within the remit of
the Department of Social and Family Affairs and is staffed by civil servants. It could possibly be argued that
paid employees can never be truly independent in adjudicating the actions of other officers of the same
employer. Indeed, the previous appeals mechanism was described as providing “an efficient method of
internal administrative review but, given the status of the appeals officer – at the time of appointment such
a person is, and remains, employed within the Department of Social Welfare and holds office “during the
pleasure of the Minister” – it is unrealistic to regard this form of adjudication as an independent appeals
mechanism”.16 While the particular article referred to was written prior to the formation of the Appeals
Office, the comments may still be relevant and pertinent to the existing system - as noted by Clarke (1995),
both Deciding Officers and Appeals Officers within the Social Welfare Appeals Office are civil servants who
hold their positions at the “pleasure of the Minister” but are required to act quasi-judicially.17 However, it
should also be noted that all participants in the research found that the Appeals Officers acted independently
when hearing an appeal.18
Hogan and Morgan state that while the reforms introduced with the Social Welfare Appeals Office are “...
beyond the merely superficial, their significance may be overstated. The basic lack of even-handedness
...... remains and it is only when the social welfare appeals system is remodelled along the lines of An
Bord Pleanála or the Valuation Tribunal that the independence of this system will be beyond question”.19
They also state that the appeals system and procedures could be questioned as to whether they breach
constitutional justice given the institutional bias that may be involved.20
The Leggat Review of Tribunals in the UK highlighted the impact of such “arms-length” structures on the
perception of those using a tribunal: “The very fact that a department is responsible for the policy and
legislation, under which cases are brought in the tribunal it sponsors, leads users to suppose that the
tribunal is part of the same enterprise as its sponsoring department.”21 The Review went on to conclude
that “Irrespective of whether they are successful, the apparent dependence of a tribunal on its sponsoring
department is indefensible.”22
Overall, it would appear that there are issues surrounding the perception of independence of the Social
8 Department of Social & Family Affairs, Promoting a Caring Society – Statement of Strategy 2003 – 2005, Objective 4, p. 23. 9 See in
particular: Clark, R., Annotated Guide to Social Welfare Law, Sweet and Maxwell, 1995; Cousins, M., The Irish Social Welfare System – Law
and Social Policy, Round Hall Press, 1995; Cousins, M., Social Welfare Law, 2nd ed, Round Hall Press, 2002; Hogan, G. and Morgan, D.,
Administrative Law in Ireland, 3rd ed., Round Hall Press, 1998; Whyte, G., Social Inclusion and the Legal System: Public Interest Law in Ireland,
Institute of Public Administration, 2002. 10 Social Welfare Act, 1990. 11 See in general, Chapter 21: Report of the Commission on Social
Welfare, Stationery Office, Dublin, 1986. 12 See in general: Whyte, G., and Cousins, M., Reforming the Social Welfare Appeals System, 1989
I.L.T.; Clark, R., Towards a “Just” Strike? Social Welfare Payments for Persons Affected by a Trade Dispute in the Republic of Ireland (1985)
48 M.L.R. 659; Report of the Commission on Social Welfare, Stationery Office, Dublin, 1986; Quinn et al. (ed.s), Contemporary Irish Social
Policy, University College Dublin Press, 1999. At p. 15, 16. Refers to research conducted by the Dublin Inner City Partnership in 1994 and Free
Legal Advice Centres (FLAC) in 1991 both of which identified a number of different reasons for low take-up of various income maintenance
schemes. Both pieces of research looked at the Supplementary Welfare Allowance Scheme and identified a lack of trust in the appeals system
as one of the primary reasons for people not applying. 13 Social Welfare Appeals Office, Annual Report 2002. 14 Cousins, M., Social Welfare
Adjudication in Ireland, 1847 – 1995: A Diachronic Analysis, 1993 – 1995 Ir. Jur. 361, at p. 373. See also by the same author The Irish Social
Welfare System: Law and Social Policy, Round Hall Press, 1995, at p. 126. 15 Ibid. at p. 374.
16
Welfare Appeals Office. However, these issues arise regarding the structure of the Appeals Office rather
than the practice and implementation of the appeals system.
16 Clark, R., Towards a “Just” Strike? Social Welfare Payments for Persons Affected by a Trade Dispute in the Republic of Ireland (1985) 48
M.L.R. 659, At P. 666. Clark goes on so state “ ... it is unrealistic to regard this form of adjudication as an independent appeals mechanism”.
17 Clarke, R., Annotated Guide to Social Welfare Law, Sweet and Maxwell, 1995. At p. 27-289, 27-293. 18 See in general Section 3, Section
4 and Section 5. 19 Hogan, G. and Morgan, D., Administrative Law in Ireland, 3rd ed., Round Hall Press, 1998. At p. 280. 20 Ibid at p. 279.
21 Leggatt, A., Tribunals for Users – One System, One Service, Report of the Review of Tribunals, 2001 at p. 8 para. 11. 22 Ibid.
17
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
Decisions & Appeals Process
The Appeals Officer is not confined to the issues decided upon by the Deciding Officer but hears the case
All appeals systems, whether formal or informal, are subject to a constitutional right to fair procedures.23
de novo. He/She has the power to take evidence on oath, to administer oaths to witnesses and to require
This right to fair procedures ensures that the appellant has a right to:
any person to attend, give evidence or produce any documents relating to the appeal. The Appeals Officer
can decide the case on the basis of the written evidence presented or may hold an oral hearing. Contrary
g
Know the information upon which a decision has been made in relation to his or her case,24
to the initial impression that may be gained on reading the regulations, an oral hearing is “mandatory unless
g
To see any reports or other documentation which may be relied on in coming to a decision on the case,25
the case is of such a nature that it can be determined without an oral hearing, that is, summarily. An appeal
and
is of such a nature that it can be determined summarily if a determination of the claim can be fairly made on
To know the reasons for a decision to refuse the claim.26
a consideration of the documentary evidence”.31
g
Furthermore, case-law has established that when hearing the case the Appeals Officer must:
Appeal Hearings are intended to be informal and private. Hearings are attended by the Appeals Officer,
the applicant (and any representative/advocate) and relevant witnesses. Assessors (who are appointed by
g
Come to a decision based on the evidence before him/her,27
the Chief Appeals Officer having been nominated by employees’ and employers’ organisations) may also
g
Not take into account irrelevant matters,28
be present. In practice, Assessors only sit for unemployment cases (other than means-test cases, cases
g
Decide the case in a manner independent of ministerial and other interference,29
relating to claiming and working, claims for the qualified adult rate or dependent rate, payment of late claims
g
Observe fair “pre-terminations procedures”.30
and cases relating to the issue of habitual residence).32 Assessors may advise the Appeals Officer, but the
decision ultimately lies with the Appeals Officer.
Deciding Officer:
The initial decision relating to entitlement of social welfare payments/benefits is made by a “Deciding Officer”
During the hearing the Deciding Officer sets out the reason for disallowing the claim 33 and the applicant
within the Department of Social and Family Affairs (the reality is that applicants are usually advised in the
has the opportunity to comment on these reasons and to present the case as to why she/he is entitled to
first place by officials within the local office as to their eligibility for the payment being claimed). The Deciding
the payment or benefit.
Officer comes to a decision based on the facts presented in the application form, the official’s report, and
occasionally an interview with the applicant. The decision of the Deciding Officer is then communicated,
While, in theory, the concept of an informal hearing should be of benefit to the applicant, at least one author
in writing, to the applicant. The applicant is also informed (in the same letter) of their right to appeal this
has argued that in practice it may amount to the applicant being interviewed by the Appeals Officer rather
decision, and provided with a leaflet outlining Social Welfare Appeals Office and the process involved in
than a tribunal hearing as intended.34
taking an appeal.
On reaching a decision the Appeals Officer issues his/her decision in writing, and should usually do so within
Appeals Officer:
3-4 weeks of the hearing (although, in practice, the appellant is often informed within a shorter timescale).
Appeals should be made to the Social Welfare Appeals Office within 21 days of receiving the decision of
18
the Deciding Officer – in practice; appeals received outside this period are often accepted. Appeals are
Stare Decisis:
lodged in writing through completing the relevant form or setting out the grounds of appeal in a letter. On
One of the difficulties experienced by anyone wishing to take an appeal is the problem of working within a
receipt of an appeal, the Appeals Office refers the case back to the Department of Social and Family Affairs
vacuum. Appeals Officers decisions are not published leading to an absence of any system of stare decisis.
for comment and consideration. The case may then be revised, particularly if new evidence has been put
If the regulations are to be applied fairly and consistently, some type of system of precedence is required
forward in the written appeal, or put forward for consideration by an Appeals Officer.
– none exists at the moment.35
23 Kiely v. Minister for Social Welfare (No. 2) [1977] I.R. 267; Duffy v. Eastern Health Board, Unreported, High Court, March 14, 1988.
24 Kiely v. Minister for Social Welfare [1971] I.R. 21; State (Williams) v. Army Pension Board [1983] I.R. 308. 25 Kiely v. Minister for Social
Welfare [1971] I.R. 21. 26 State (Creedon) v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal [1989] I.L.R.M. 104. 27 Kiely v. Minister for Social
Welfare (No. 2) [1977] I.R. 267. 28 State (Keller) v. Galway County Council [1958] I.R. 142. 29 McLoughlin v. Minister for Social Welfare
[1958] I.R. 1, Re-asserted in: Kiely v. Minister of Social Welfare (No. 2) [1977] I.R. 267. 30 The State (Hoolahan) v. Minister for Social Welfare
Unreported, High Court, 23 July 1986.
31 Kiely v. Minister for Social Welfare, 1977 IR 267, per Henchy J. at p. 278. 32 Determination by the Chief Appeals Officer under Section
255 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act, 1993. 10th September, 2004. 33 Although, in practice, Deciding Officers may not attend appeal
hearings, often the DSFA is unrepresented. 34 Ward, P., Financial Consequences of Marital Breakdown, Combat Poverty Agency, Dublin, 1990
at p. 21. 35 However, Northside Community Law Centre is exploring the possibility of setting up a database containing such information. The
most recent Annual Report of the Social Welfare Appeals Office contains a number of case studies, which could be argued as setting precedence
for similar cases.
19
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
An internal publication within the Social Welfare Appeals Office contained a key recommendation that
Research in the UK indicates that the probability of success when taking a social security appeal increased
records of the Appeals Office cases would be produced. The Consultants were of the view that applicants
from 30% to 40% when the applicant had a representative.45 Furthermore, the research concluded that
had a right to know what factors were considered when cases were being appealed, and that the publication
the type of representation is important and where the case involved a social security appeal “lay agencies
of such records would enhance the “openness and transparency of the SWAO’s [Social Welfare Appeals
specialising in welfare law have the greatest impact on the outcome of hearings”.46 The research also found
Office] operations” 36 Case studies have been included in the SWAO’s Annual Report since 1998. However,
that appellants were more likely to attend an appeal hearing where they had obtained advice
these are limited to a small number of case studies, rather than full publication of all decisions.
“The most frequent cause of lack of representation among those who had sought representation was lack
47
and that
of resources on the part of the lay agency approached, or lack of ability to pay for legal services where a
Advice & Representation:
solicitor had been approached.” 48 The research also concluded that “The experience of tribunals was that
Applicants appealing a decision to the Social Welfare Appeals Office are not entitled as of right to have
good representation resulted in properly investigated cases, the provision of the correct sort of evidence,
legal (or other) representation present at the appeal. The decision as to whether to the applicant is granted
coherent and succinct isolation of relevant material and presentation of facts. Good representatives also
representation is at the discretion of the Appeals Officer.37 Hogan and Morgan point out that while legal
assisted the tribunal by researching the law and presenting relevant cases to the tribunal. In sum, the view
representation is not required under the principles of constitutional justice “the failure on the part of the
of tribunals was that good representation always made their job easier.” 49
appeals officer to permit representation in an appropriate case would probably amount to an unreasonable
exercise of his discretion”.38 It should be noted that, in practice Appeals Officer allow representatives or
Figures available from Northern Ireland also highlight the positive impact of representation at tribunals. The
“support persons” to attend.39
Table below (Table 2) demonstrates clearly the impact of representation – an average of 25% of appeals
were allowed in 2002, however this increased to 43% where the appeal was “with representation”.
The Civil Legal Aid Scheme is not available for the purposes of a social welfare appeal, however the Appeals
Tribunal Appeals (North of Ireland), 2002.
Officer has the discretion to grant expenses to a solicitor who appears (this is usually done at the standard
rate agreed with the Incorporated Law Society). O’Sullivan v. Minister for Social Welfare
40
held that an
Appeal Officer could not limit his/her discretion to award costs by deciding to award a standard amount
agreed with the Law Society. However, an Appeals Officer’s discretion was since restricted to an award of
expenses only (where expenses relate to the lawyer’s attendance at an oral hearing).41
One small survey of 33 women who appealed in relation to Deserted Wives Payments found that 40%
had no representation at the Appeal, 12% were legally represented, 16% had a social worker present and
Success Rate
Disability
Appeals
Medical
Appeals
Social
Security
Appeals
All
Appeals
Appeals Allowed – Representative
34%
57%
61%
43%
Appeals Allowed - No Representative
12%
21%
23%
15%
Appeals Allowed - Overall
21%
32%
30%
25%
% of Appeals with Representation
40%
21%
27%
35%
Table 3: Impact of Representation on Outcome of Appeals (Northern Ireland).
a further 12% of appeals were held in the presence of another person (usually a family member) – the
remaining 15% were unknown.42
The importance of representation was highlighted in one article in 1989.43 The authors briefly contrast
the overall success rate in social welfare appeals (ranging from 33.3% to 50%) 44 with the success rate of
cases taken by FLAC (approximately 65%). In doing so, they point out that their figures are drawn from
a low base line and that they do not know whether they were using the same criteria for success as the
Commission. However, the figures did signal the importance of representation, an issue further emphasised
by the authors through the use of a case-study.
36 Deloitte & Touche, Department of Social and Family Affairs, Review of the Social Welfare Appeals Office, Final Report, 2002, at p. 2.
37 Social Welfare (Appeals) Regulations 1990 (S.I. No. 344 of 1990). 38 Cited by Clarke. See n. 9 at p. 278. 39 Ellis, D., Social Welfare
Appeals Advocacy – Manual, Northside Community Law Centre, 1997 at p.22. 40 Unreported, High Court, 9 May 1995. 41 S. 34 Social
Welfare Act, 1996. 42 Op. cit. n. 12 at p. 58. 43 Whyte, G. and Cousins, M., Reforming the Social Welfare Appeals System, 1989 I.L.T. 198.
44 See further Report of the Commission on Social Welfare, pl.3851, para. 21.4 referred to by Whyte, G. and Cousins, M. above.
20
It could be argued that having representation can lead to an increasingly formalised system (possibly causing
the Department to use representation) and eventually leading to an appeals mechanism as formal and
expensive as the judicial system. Such an appeal system would not be readily accessible, and may become
more inaccessible than the judicial system itself. However, lack of representation may be disadvantageous
to appellants. Genn and Genn state that representatives experience is such that “unrepresented appellants
and applicants are disadvantaged at tribunal hearings because there is an imbalance of power between the
parties, because appellants and applicants do not understand the law, are unable to present their cases
coherently and are unaware of the need to furnish the tribunal with evidence of the facts that they are
45 Genn, H. and Genn Y., The Effectiveness of Representation at Tribunals, Report to the Lord Chancellor, (1989) at p. 243. 46 Ibid. at p.
243-4. 47 Ibid. at p. 245. In this context the quote refers to a broad range of Tribunals, not specifically social security appeals. 48 Ibid. 49
Ibid at p. 245.
21
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
asserting”.50 Indeed, this viewpoint is echoed by community and voluntary organisations and individual
Australia – Social Security Appeals Tribunal
appellants involved in this research (Sections 4 and 5). Genn and Genn further highlight that “The experience
When looking at similar appeals systems internationally, the Australian model appears to be the closest
of unrepresented appellants and applicant indicates that, even in the most informal hearings, they have
in structure to the Irish Social Welfare Appeals Office. There the Social Security Appeals Tribunal has the
difficulty in expressing themselves; they do not understand the relevance of the rules and regulations that are
“statutory objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick”.52
quoted to them; and when they lose, frequently leave in a state of disappointment and frustration.......Those
Similar to the Social Welfare Appeals Office, the Tribunal is described as independent of the agencies which
appellants who were represented at their hearings still displayed only a limited understanding of the process
deliver and administer social welfare payments and benefits (Centrelink and other Departments); however
that they had just experienced, but valued the assistance of the representative in presenting their case and
it is “within the portfolio of the Minister for Family and Community Services”.53
in acting as a buffer between themselves and the tribunal, whom they regarded as intimidating”.51
Before an appeal can be heard by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal the initial decision must have been
International Context
reviewed by an “Authorised Review Officer” within Centrelink or the relevant Department. The National
When examining any adjudication or appeals mechanism, it is always useful to put it within an international
Welfare Rights Network estimates that 35% of decisions reviewed at this stage are changed.54 This is
context. It would be impossible within the scope of this project to conduct a comprehensive review of
significantly higher than the corresponding figure of 22-24% of decisions revised by a Deciding Officer.55
all appeals systems internationally. However, there are a number of appeals systems which are of direct
interest when looking at the Irish system.
All staff employed within the Tribunal are public servants and are responsible for the administration and
support work necessary to ensure the delivery of an appeals service. However, one crucial difference from
The following pages briefly outline four different appeals structures:
the Irish system is that staff do not participate in appeals hearings. Instead Tribunal Members are appointed
by the Governor General 56 on the basis of their “specialist knowledge, communication skills, knowledge of
g
The Australian Security Appeals Tribunal is comparable in structure to the Social Welfare Appeals
the social security system and their understanding of, and commitment to, the principal of administrative
Office. At “arms length” from its home-department it is a quasi-judicial structure, providing informal
review”.57 While this system is short of a wholly independent judicial type appeals system, it does provide
hearings aimed at ensuring an accessible mechanism. There are a number of crucial differences which
for a greater public perception of independence.
ensure a greater perception of independence and transparency than with the Irish Appeals Office.
Overall, the Australian Tribunal shares many similarities with the Irish model. However, there are some
g
The recently established UK Appeals Service also shares a number of similarities with the Irish system.
practical differences which ensure a more accessible and independent appeals system:
However, it is a judicial tribunal with independent Tribunal members; while it has a close relationship
and communication structures with the relevant agencies and departments, it has a far greater level of
g
independence.
Lodging of Appeals:
In addition to accepting appeals on standard forms, the Tribunal also facilitates appeals being lodged by
telephone through a free call number. Appeals can also be lodged electronically, or in person by visiting
g
g
The American appeals mechanism is briefly summarised. Essentially the American system has a number
local offices. While this may appear to be a very basic procedural issue, the ability to lodge appeals by
of layers of internal review before recourse to the civil courts.
telephone ensures that the system is accessible to all applicants regardless of their literacy levels.
The Danish system is an arms length independent review board – which bears many similarities to
g
Hearing:
the Irish system. However, one notable difference is that it does not hold oral hearings. Decisions are
The hearing is aimed at being informal and accessible, while still respecting fair procedures. The
reached on the basis of written evidence and the participation of lay-judges and medical experts.
Tribunal hearing is conducted by two or three members with expertise in law, welfare, medicine or
public administration depending on the case. Majority decisions, while unusual, can be given. In such a
situation both the majority decision and the dissenting opinion are given in writing.
50 Ibid. at p. 244. In this context the quote refers to a broad range of Tribunals, not specifically social security appeals. 51 Ibid at p. 246-7.
22
52 Source: Social Security Appeals Tribunal Website: www.ssat.gov.au 53 The Social Security Appeals Tribunal, Annual Report 2002-03
at p. 3. 54 Source: www.welfarerights.org.au 55 Further detail is contained in Table 4 at p. 34. 56 The Governor-General is the Queen’s
representative in Australia and the person in whom the executive power of the commonwealth is vested. 57 Ibid at p. 9.
23
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
Similar to the Irish system applicants can be represented at hearings, but the Tribunal does not cover
United Kingdom – Appeals Service
the costs of representation. However, in contrast with the Irish system Centrelink is not represented at
The Appeals Service in the UK was set-up and formally launched in 2000, and is described as an independent
the hearing 58 – its case is presented in a written submission (usually a copy of the authorised review
organisation that arranges and hears appeals and decisions on:
officer’s letter to the person who is appealing with the reasons for the decision).
g
4
Social security (including Jobseekers Allowance and Incapacity Benefit),
In an effort to ensure an accessible appeals system, there is a mechanism in place whereby the hearing
4
Child Support,
can be conducted by telephone or video-conferencing when the applicant lives in a remote area or
4
Vaccine Damage,
cannot travel to the hearing.
4
Working Tax Credit,
4
Compensation Recovery,
Further Appeals:
4
Child Tax Credit,
If an applicant is not satisfied with the Tribunal’s decision, he/she has the right to take the matter
4
Pensions Credit.61
further and lodge an appeal with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Centrelink can also appeal the
decision.
There are a broad range of decisions which are categorised as “non-appealable” and cannot be heard by
the Appeals Service. These include decisions concerning national insurance contributions, changes in rates
g
Service Charter:
of payments and decisions regarding the rates of recovery of an overpayment.
The Social Security Appeals Tribunal has a “Service Charter” outlining the role of the Tribunal, the
applicant’s rights and responsibilities and the Tribunal’s own internal complaints process. This Charter
g
contains commitments to ensure that the applicant has a “fair hearing, with an opportunity to be
Structure:
Within the Appeals Service there are two distinct bodies:
heard”.59 The Service Charter also outlines the right to be represented, to be kept informed of progress
1. Appeals Tribunal,
of the appeal, to see documents seen by the Tribunal and access to evidence considered and to be
notified of further appeal rights.
Headed by the President of Appeals Tribunals, this is a non-departmental public body with
responsibility for the judicial functioning of appeals tribunals.
While at one level, such a Service Charter might be regarded as a somewhat cosmetic exercise, it is
2. Appeals Executive Agency,
an important one in ensuring a perception of independence and transparency in its workings. Indeed
the Deloitte & Touche Review made a recommendation that there should be a Code of Practice/
Headed by the Chief Executive, the executive agency of the Department for Work and Pensions is
Customer Service Charter developed and produced by the Social Welfare Appeals Office – this code
responsible for the administration of appeals.
of practice should (according to the Report) set out “service standards and guarantees for interacting
with appellants and processing appeals. Service standards should be clear, achievable, realistic and
measurable (where relevant).”60
g
Appeal Mechanism:
Appeals have to be made in writing. As with the Irish system, there is a standard appeals form but it is not
necessary that these are used. Appeals are lodged with the agency which made the initial decision.
Subsequent to the initial appeal being lodged, the original decision-maker (equivalent to the Irish
Deciding Officer in this context) sends a copy of the reasons for the initial decision to both the person
appealing and the Appeals service and a “pre-hearing enquiry form” to the applicant. When the applicant
then returns the “pre-hearing enquiry form” a date is set for an appeal hearing.
58 Although, in practice the DSFA may not appear at Appeal Hearings. 59 Social Security Appeals Tribunal, Service Charter, Rights and
Responsibilities. 60 Deloitte & Touche, Op. cit. n. 33 at p. 3.
24
61 Source: Appeals Service, www.appeals-service.gov.uk
25
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
The Appeals Service has a number of critical distinctions from the Irish system:
g
Charter:
Again, similar to other appeals services internationally the British Appeals Service has published
1
Tribunal Members:
the “Service First Statement” which sets out a charter and delivery standards in an attempt
Tribunal members are appointed to their positions by the Lord Chancellor and are independent
to ensure a quality service is delivered to applicants. As mentioned previously, such a charter
of the Pensions Service, Jobcentre, Child Support Agency and Local Authorities (i.e. relevant
strengthens the perception of the independence of the appeals system and ensures a greater
agencies against whose decision the appeal is being made). This independence is vital in
level of transparency in its workings.
both establishing the independence of the Tribunal in practice as well as the perception of
the independence of the Tribunal. As highlighted earlier a number of commentators are of
the opinion that until a similar structure is established in an Irish context the perception will
remain that the Appeals Office is not truly independent of the Department of Social and Family
Affairs.
The expertise of Tribunal members varies widely and those sitting on an appeal will have
expertise relevant to the particular case (for example, where the hearing involves Disability Living
Allowance the Tribunal will consist of three members – a legally qualified Chairperson, a Doctor
and a person who has experience of people with disabilities). This variation of experience and
expertise can be of direct benefit to those taking an appeal. Some appellants who participated
in the research believed that within the Irish system independent expert opinion is not always
available to the Appeals Officer – this is particularly relevant in cases involving disability
payments where the Appeals Officer is often relying on the contradictory evidence of the
medical assessors (against whose decision the appeal is being taken) and evidence presented
by the person taking an appeal. While the existing system of Assessors (within the Irish appeals
system) is used in employment cases, it is not generally used for availing of other sources
of external expertise. A system such as that used in the UK would ensure that independent
expertise and knowledge would inform the decision.
1
Tribunal Hearing:
As the structure is a judicial tribunal, it is bound by procedural rules such as the necessity to
hold hearings in public. Depending on which benefit is involved in the appeal, the tribunal will
consist of 1, 2 or 3 members. Again, this can be of significant benefit to those taking an appeal.
Natural justice and procedural rules ensure a system which is fair and balanced, and should
avoid anyone being at a disadvantage through lack of familiarity with the system. Conversely,
such a system increases the formality and complexity involved in taking an appeal – it could
formalise the appeals system to the extent that representation is always essential when taking
an appeal (thereby increasing the costs and expenses involved in appealing a decision).
26
27
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
United States of America
Denmark
The American Appeals system is fundamentally different from the Irish system, in that it does not provide a
The National Social Appeals Board is described as an “independent government institution under the
quasi-judicial appeals mechanism. Nor does it provide for an independent autonomous tribunal to provide
Ministry of Social Affairs” 62 and is the final administrative (non-judicial) body of appeal in Denmark.
adjudication, instead it has a number of different internal review mechanisms and ultimately an applicant can
look for a federal court review. There are four levels of review:
g
Structure & Accountability:
The National Social Appeals Board is staffed by approximately 200 permanent staff, and headed by a
1. Reconsideration:
Director-General who is also the president of the Board. The Board consists of 10 Ministerial appointees
Reconsideration is a complete review of the claim by another official who was not involved in the initial
and the Director-General. While this system ensures that the National Social Appeals Board is independent
decision. New evidence can also be considered at this stage. The decision is then sent in writing to the
of the original decision making-body, it can give rise to other concerns. A similar system of Ministerial
applicant.
nomination, if adopted in Ireland, could give rise to complaints of political nepotism and cronyism (criticisms
levelled at some state boards and visiting committees at the moment). Were such a system to be considered,
2. Hearing:
the social partners could possibly nominate board-members who would then be approved by the Minister.
A “Hearing” is conducted by an administrative law judge, who has not been involved in the case previously.
As with all areas of public administration in Denmark, the appeals system is subject to the scrutiny of the
The applicant may be represented and agreed costs are paid by the Social Security Agency.
Ombudsman.
3. Appeals Council Review:
g
Appeal Mechanism:
An Appeals Council Review is a further internal review mechanism. An Appeals Council can either decide
Subsequent to the initial decision, there is a legal requirement that claimants receive a written decision
the case or refer it back to an Administrative Law Judge.
containing information about their right to appeal and the time-limits on taking an appeal (4 weeks from the
day of receiving such a decision). No specific grounds for an appeal are required. Appeals are sent initially to
4. Federal Court Review:
If the applicant is not satisfied with the decisions to date, a civil suit can be filed with the federal
the deciding authority which then reviews the case – if the decision is not revised the appeal is forwarded
on to the National Social Appeals Board.
district court.
There are two “streams” of appeals cases within the Danish social appeals system:
The American system, as mentioned, is essentially a tier of internal-reviews with recourse to the legal courts.
One of the advantages of a “tribunal-type” appeals system (as exists in Ireland and other jurisdictions) is the
1. Work Accidents & Occupational Diseases:
accessibility and informality intended within the system. An appeals system which relies on judicial courts
Cases relating to work accidents and occupational diseases are decided initially by the National Board
is unwieldy and prohibitively expensive for many, and could lead to people not being able to access a
of Industrial Injuries, and decisions can be appealed to the National Social Appeals Board.
meaningful appeals mechanism.
Where a case is regarded as being without fundamental or general interest (i.e. cases relating to
work accidents and occupational diseases) the appeals are decided at a meeting presided over by
three chairpersons. The meeting is also attended by two lay-judges (appointed by the Minister on
the recommendation of Trade Unions, Employers Organisations, Disability Organisations and Local
Authority Organisations) and a medical consultant. These lay-judges provide expertise and advice to the
chairperson when reaching their decision. Neither the appellant nor a representative attends the appeal.
However, the appellant can use a representative when preparing material to be examined during the
appeal.
62 National Social Appeals Board, 2004.
28
29
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
2. Other Social Security payments & Social Assistance payments:
Statistical Overview
Initial decisions regarding all social security payments other than those relating to work accidents and
The numbers of appeals received by the Social Welfare Appeals Office annually from 1998 to 2003 ranged
occupational diseases, and all social assistance schemes are made by local authorities and can be
from 14,000 to almost 18,000. The total number of appeals received during 2003 (15,224) was the first
appealed to a Regional Social Appeals Board.
increase in appeals received since 2000 (17,650).
Appeals Received 1998 - 2003.
The decision of the Regional Social Appeals Board is final, unless the National Social Appeals Board
regards it as a case of “fundamental or general importance”.63 Such matters of fundamental or general
importance include:
1
Issues that the Appeals Board has not yet taken a position on;
1
Questions in connection with new rules or guidelines;
1
Questions on administrative guidelines conflicting with the legislation
or lacking statutory authority;
1
Changes in the perception of law as expressed by the Parliamentary Ombudsman,
the High Courts or the Supreme Court;
1
Changes in society leading to a need to review existing practice;
1
The Decision is contrary to practice published by the Appeals Board.64
Such appeals are decided in meetings where two chairpersons and two lay-judges participate.
The meeting is chaired by the Director General of Deputy Director General.
Again, the use of “lay-judges” ensures a wide-range of experience and expertise is available when making a
decision. The National Social Appeals Board does not hold oral hearings, rather decides the cases entirely
on the basis of written evidence and expert opinion. While someone appealing a decision may use a legal (or
other) representative to prepare the case, legal aid is not provided. Decisions of the National Social Appeals
Board are subject to judicial review, and may be appealed to the High Court.
At first glance, this lack of oral hearing would appear to be of immediate disadvantage to those taking an
appeal. However, this is not the initial appeal (as all payments have appeal mechanisms available before
reaching the National Social Appeals Board), and the Board only deals with cases involving work accidents/
occupational diseases or are of “fundamental or general importance” (i.e. matters of principle).
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Old Age (Non-Contributory) & Blind Pensions
570
503
558
575
433
376
Retirement Pensions
29
29
23
25
33
46
Pre-Retirement Allowances
81
38
48
32
28
24
Old Age (Contributory) Pensions
98
87
77
106
239
155
Disability Benefit
3,813
3,917
3,968
3,434
3,284
3,634
Invalidity Pension
543
554
626
491
509
529
1,254
1,302
1,750
1,861
1,832
2,257
793
741
806
677
575
503
1
1
5
3
4
9
Unemployment Benefit
1,370
1,738
2,481
1,881
1,588
1,626
Unemployment Assistance - Payments
1,157
1,865
2,821
2,262
1,983
1,874
Unemployment Assistance - Means
2,911
2,246
1,757
1,511
1,511
1,167
Widows/Widowers & Orphans Pensions
125
103
151
142
106
64
One-Parent Family Payment
578
597
779
762
840
1,348
Maternity Benefit
14
20
16
9
9
10
Child Benefit
116
85
50
56
46
41
Carer’s Benefit & Allowance
285
756
1,009
1,334
1,376
812
Family Income Supplement
64
57
63
78
72
43
-
481
298
157
134
127
115
213
239
354
289
433
Rent Allowance (Private Rented Dwellings ACT)
1
2
1
2
-
-
Liable Relatives (Contributions)***
-
3
18
117
6
7
96
127
106
92
120
139
14,014
15,465
Disability Allowance
Occupational Injuries Benefits
Treatment Benefit
Farm Assist*
Supplementary Welfare Allowances**
Insurability of Employment
Totals
17,650 15,961 15,017
15,224
Table 4: Appeals Received 1998 - 2003.
* Commenced 7th April 1999.
** Commenced 6th April 1998.
*** Commenced 4th May 1999.
Source: Social Welfare Appeals Office.
63 Internal Memorandum, National Social Appeals Board, 28/04/04. 64 Ibid.
30
31
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
In contrast, there has been a steady increase in the number of recipients of weekly social welfare payments
Outcome of Appeals, 1998 - 2003.
over the same time period; with the exception of 2000, when there was a decrease in the number of
recipients. There may be a number of reasons why the levels of appeals has not increased in correlation with
the numbers of recipients – it could be that there are improved systems within the Department for assessing
1998
claims leading to a lower level of recipients wishing to appeal a decision; or it may be that recipients do
not have confidence in the appeals system and do not feel it worthwhile to appeal a decision. Without
1999
more comprehensive research exploring the attitudes of those whose claim is rejected (but do not take an
2000
appeal), it is impossible to reach any conclusions in this regard.
Number of Recipients of Weekly Social Welfare Payments by Payment Category, 1998 - 2003.
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Old Age
256,809
261,281
267,760
276,065
287,395
298,169
Widows, Widowers & 1-Parent Families
198,094
203,091
206,130
206,130
211,385
211,774
6,900
7,640
8,067
12,134
12,696
12,186
Illness, Disability & Caring
161,588
172,104
181,569
193,536
206,137
216,292
Unemployment Supports
182,087
149,705
116,069
126,447
137,982
145,339
Employment Supports
55,885
65,120
64,833
56,582
50,920
44,113
Supplementary Welfare Allowance*
16,300
21,269
25,094
29,167
32,073
31,217
586
548
472
433
383
342
878,249
880,758
869,994
903,375
938,971
959,432
Child Related Payments
Miscellaneous Payments
Totals
Table 5: Number of Recipients of Weekly Social Welfare Payments by Payment Type & Programme,
1998 - 2003.
* Includes Weekly Payments Only.
Source: Department of Social & Family Affairs.
2001
2002
2003
Allowed
Partly Allowed
Revised Deciding
Officer Decision
Disallowed
Withdrawn
Total
2,351
845
3,245
5,850
1,699
15,988
17%
6%
23%
42%
12%
100%
2,671
711
3,516
5,661
1,838
14,397
19%
5%
24%
39%
13%
100%
2,956
604
3,788
7,111
2,601
17,060
17%
4%
22%
42%
15%
100%
3,166
505
3,822
6,779
2,253
16,525
19%
3%
23%
41%
14%
100%
2,757
485
3,854
6,902
1,836
15,834
17%
3%
24%
44%
12%
100%
2,798
498
3,738
6,612
2,403
16,049
17%
3%
23%
41%
15%
100%
Table 6: Outcome of Appeals, 1998 - 2003.
During 2003, the average time to process a social welfare appeal was 21 weeks (a reduction of two weeks
on the previous year). The Appeals Office points out that “If the 25% of protracted appeals is taken out of
the reckoning the average time for processing an appeal in 2003 was 12 weeks”.65
Unfortunately, the recording mechanisms used by the Department of Social and Family Affairs when
rejecting claims do not allow the reasons for rejection to be reliably recorded. However, overall figures for
the numbers of claims received/rejected and appeals received by payment can be compared across a broad
range of schemes.66
Almost half (44%) of those who lodged an appeal in 2003 had a favourable outcome (i.e. Allowed/Partly
2003
Allowed/Revised by Deciding Officer), which is in line with the overall trend in the past five years. There has
been a considerable level of consistency over the past five years, with little change within the categories of
Claims
Received
Claims
Rejected
% of
Claims
Rejected
Appeals
Received
Appeals
Received as
% of Claims
Rejected
Old Age (Contributory) Pension
23,342
6,482
28%
148
2%
Retirement Pension
14,468
4,094
28%
45
1%
Old Age (Non-Contributory) Pension
8,491
2,400
28%
355
15%
0
87
0%
355
46,301
12,976
0%
568
Payment
outcome. While there has been a minor decrease in the proportion of appeals which are Partially Allowed,
the overall breakdown across the categories has not seen any significant inconsistencies or discrepancies.
Pre-Retirement Allowance
Total Old Age
Continued over...
65 Social Welfare Appeals Office, Annual Report, 2003. At p. 4. 66 These figures are generated internally within the Department of Social
and Family Affairs and Social Welfare Appeals Office. There may be slight discrepancies with published Annual Report figures due to varying
classification mechanisms.
32
33
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
Widow/er’s Pension
8,462
1,414
17%
15
1%
Widow/er’s (Non-Contributory) Pension
958
382
40%
25
7%
Deserted Wife’s Benefit
77
4
5%
14
350%
Deserted Wife’s Allowance
89
27
30%
4
15%
Prisoner’s Wife’s Allowance
0
0
0%
0
0%
One Parent Family Payment
17,595
5,191
30%
1,295
25%
Total Widow/er’s & One-Parent Families
27,181
7,018
1
1,353
Maternity Benefit
31,577
927
3%
10
Health & Safety Benefit
174
50
29%
0
Adoptive Benefit
182
5
3%
1
20%
1,421
108
8%
17
16%
883
54
6%
7
13%
Child Benefit
194,588
0
0%
41
Total Child Related Payments
228,825
1,144
0%
76
Disability Benefit
244,000
17,326
7%
3,621
21%
Invalidity Pension
5,633
1,789
32%
522
29%
Injury Benefit
15,049
1,246
8%
71
6%
Disablement Benefit
1,953
273
14%
364
133%
19
0
0
0
0%
Disability Allowance
17,189
4,969
29%
2,166
44%
Carers Benefit
1,388
486
35%
34
7%
Carers Allowance
7,233
2,395
33%
752
31%
212
82
39%
9
11%
Total Illness, Disability & Caring
292,676
28,566
10%
7,539
Unemployment Payments*
297,344
N/A
N/A
3,444
Family Income Supplement
18,511
3,235
17%
42
Total Employment Supports
315,855
3,235
1%
3,486
Totals
910,838
52,939
6%
13,022
Orphan’s (Contributory) Pension
Orphan’s (Non-Contributory) Pension
Death Benefit OIB Widows
Blind Person’s Pension
When looking at the figures it becomes evident that a high proportion of claims received within the “Illness,
Disability and Caring” category are rejected. Specifically, there is a high rejection rate within Invalidity Pension,
Disability Allowance, Carer’s Benefit, Carer’s Allowance and Blind Person’s Pension. This may be due to the
particularly complex nature of the schemes involved and the difficulties in understanding entitlements to
those schemes, or may be related to more ambiguous eligibility requirements.
Similarly, the number of appeals received (as a percentage of claims rejected) is particularly high for One
Parent Family Payment, Disability Benefit, Disability Allowance and Carer’s Allowance which may be due to
1%
internal review mechanisms within the Department of Social and Family Affairs (these particular payments are
often subject to an annual review, leading to a disproportionately high number of appeals when compared
with the numbers of claims received).
Illness, Disability & Caring - Claims Received/Rejected 2003
Payment
Claims
Received
Claims
Rejected
% of Claims
Rejected
Disability Benefit
244,000
17,326
7%
Invalidity Pension
5,633
1,789
32%
Injury Benefit
15,049
1,246
8%
Disablement Benefit
1,953
273
14%
19
0
0%
Disability Allowance
17,189
4,969
29%
Carer’s Benefit
1,388
486
35%
Carer’s Allowance
7,233
2,395
33%
212
82
39%
292,676
28,566
10%
Death Benefit OIB Widows
Blind Person’s Pension
Total Illness, Disability & Caring
Table 8: Illness, Disability & Caring - Claims Received/Rejected 2003.
Source: Department of Social & Family Affairs.
1%
25%
Table 7: Number of Claims Received/Rejected (Department of Social and Family Affairs) and Appeals
Received (Social Welfare Appeals Office).
* Figures Derived from CSO Inflows.
Source: Department of Social and Family Affairs, Social Welfare Appeals Office.
34
35
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
Carer’s Allowance, Appeals Outcome 2003
60
Weekly Recipients
Allowed
Disallowed
Partially
Allowed
Total
Means
25
97
12
134
Not providing Full-time Care
35
72
9
116
Overpayment Recovery
0
3
0
3
170
231
18
419
Date of Awards
2
1
1
4
Other
24
27
0
51
Total
256
431
40
727
Appeals Issue
Appeals Received
50
40
Full time Care Not Required
30
20
10
Table 9: Carer’s Allowance, Appeals Outcome 2003.
0
Old Age
Payments
Widows,
Widowers &
1-Parent Family
Payments
Child
Related
Payments
Illness,
Disability &
Caring
Unemployment
Supports
Supplementary
Welfare
Allowances
Other
Disability Allowance, Appeals Outcome 2003
Chart 1: Percentage Breakdown of Weekly Recipients compared to Percentage Breakdown of Appeals
Received, 2003.
When briefly comparing the proportion of recipients to appeals received by programme type
67
it can
again be seen that Illness, Disability and Caring account for a disproportionate number of appeals received
by the Social Welfare Appeals Office. This may be caused by a number of factors, including the complex
nature of the schemes involved and the fact that Disability Payments are subject to annual reviews within
the Department, which could lead to a high level of appeals. Conversely, Child Benefit (which is a universal
scheme) had a negligible level of claims rejected or claims appealed.
Allowed
Disallowed
Partially
Allowed
Total
Date of Awards
1
7
2
10
Means Assessment
48
277
29
354
Overpayment
17
11
1
29
Medical Condition
285
369
7
661
Other
15
37
6
58
Total
366
701
45
1,112
Appeals Issue
Table 10: Disability Allowance, Appeals Outcome 2003.
It is useful therefore to take a more detailed look at the outcome of appeals within two payment types
– Carer’s Allowance and Disability Allowance.
There were a total of 727 Appeals relating to Carer’s Allowance in 2003 68 (figures do not include appeals
which were revised or withdrawn), 41% of which were allowed or partially allowed. The majority (58%) of
those appeals related to whether full-time care was required (44% within this category were allowed or
partially allowed).
In the same year there were 1,112 appeals relating to Disability Allowance 69 (figures do not include appeals
which were revised or withdrawn). A total of 37% of which were allowed or partially allowed. The majority
(60%) of appeals were regarding medical conditions (44% of which were allowed or partially allowed).
67 Ibid. While most appeals arise from an initial application, internal reviews within the Department may also give rise to appeals (particularly
within the Illness, Disability and Caring Category).
36
68 Ibid. 69 Ibid.
37
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
Section 3 – Survey of Recent Appellants
Within these two schemes the highest areas of appeal related to issues which are discretionary or a matter
of interpretation, specifically regarding medical conditions and the impact of those medical conditions.
Subsequent sections of this report highlight the fact that many organisations and appellants had particular
concerns around the perceived role of medical assessors when processing claims.
Impact of Representation:
Unfortunately, figures are not available from the Social Welfare Appeals Office enabling a study of the impact
of representation on the outcome of an appeal. However, as highlighted earlier 70 research in the UK and
figures available from Northern Ireland clearly establish that the presence of a representative/advocate
influences the potential outcome of the appeal.
Summary
The Social Welfare Appeals Office deals with most appeals for payments administered by the Department
of Social and Family Affairs and also hears appeals in respect of the non-discretionary elements of
the Supplementary Welfare Allowance Scheme. It aims to provide an independent, accessible and fair
appeals service; however, some commentators have questioned whether (in its current structure) the
Appeals Office can ever be perceived to be truly independent of the Department.
For many people attending an oral hearing in the Social Welfare Appeals Office, this will be their first
time participating in such a process. Appellants have a right to fair procedure, and appeal hearings
are intended to be informal and private. Appellants are not entitled to representation (although, in
practice, representatives can attend). International research and evidence indicates the presence of a
representative/advocate had a significant impact on the success rate of appeals.
In conducting this research, it was felt that the most valuable source of information would be those who had
recently engaged with the appeals system themselves. To this end postal questionnaires were distributed
to 485 appellants whose appeal had been “closed” by the Social Welfare Appeals Office during a twoweek period in July 2004, thereby ensuring a directly representative sample group. Questionnaires were
distributed directly by the Social Welfare Appeals Office, thus protecting the confidentiality of appellants.
Appellants were sent the questionnaire 71 with a covering letter outlining the purpose of the research, the
independent and confidential nature of the survey, and were asked to respond within a fortnight. A total of
147 responses were received amounting to a response rate of 30.3%. This section outlines the results of
that survey; the data is presented within four categories:
4
General Information,
4
Prior to Appeal,
4
Oral Hearing,
4
General Comments.
As with all surveys, there is a potential risk of bias or distortion amongst the resulting data. While all efforts
were made during the design stage to ensure the questionnaire was as straightforward and easy to use as
possible, potential distortions cannot always be fully eliminated. Such distortions may arise from:
�
g
There is currently no system of publication of decisions or precedence.
Internationally, there are a number of models which can be considered.
Practical initiatives internationally include:
g
Ability to lodge an appeal verbally,
g
Establishment of a panel of independent experts to hear cases,
g
Publication of a service charter outlining service standards, and
g
Benchmarks for the appeals process.
The number of appeals received by the Social Welfare Appeals Office remains relatively constant,
despite an increase in the number of recipients of social welfare payments.
Outcome of the Appeal – the outcome of the appeal may impact on the respondent’s
replies to the questions.
g
Manner of response - questionnaires may sometimes be answered in a rushed manner,
thereby leading to errors and incorrect answers.
g
Misunderstanding - questions may not be understood, and there is little scope for clarification
on the part of the respondent in postal questionnaires.
g
Accessibility - literacy barriers may prevent many potential respondents from participating
in the survey.
Nevertheless, the findings of the survey do represent the attitudes of a group of appellants towards the
social welfare appeals system. These findings are further strengthened by the outcomes of the qualitative
data obtained during more in-depth interviews with a small group of appellants contained in Section 4 and
the meeting with community and voluntary organisations providing services to social welfare appellants
outlined in Section 5. Some of the findings within the survey are also mirrored in research carried out in the
UK during the 1980’s.72
70 At p. 16.
38
71 This survey would not have been possible without the cooperation and commitment of the Social Welfare Appeals Office. Northside
Community Law Centre would like to acknowledge and express our appreciation to the SWAO. A copy of the questionnaire is contained in
Appendix 1. 71 Genn, H. and Genn, Y., The Effectiveness of Representation at Tribunals – Report to the Lord Chancellor, (1989).
39
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
General Information:
Outcome of Appeal
The responses were balanced between men (44.5%) and women (55.5%), and were geographically spread
type, which is reflective of the categories of appeals received within the Appeals Office in 2003. While there
were some variations between categories of payment type there were no significant differences between
the numbers of appeals received by the Social Welfare Appeals Office and the survey responses (see Chart
2 below). The highest category of appeals was within “Illness and Disability” both amongst the survey
respondents and the numbers of appeals received by the Social Welfare Appeals Office in 2003.
Social Welfare Appeals
Office, 2003.
Survey
across the country.73 There was also a representative spread across the different age groups and scheme
Allowed
71
48%
2,798
23%
Partially Allowed
5
3%
498
4%
Disallowed
59
40%
6,612
54%
Withdrew Appeal
4
3%
2,403
20%
No response
8
5%
0
0%
Table 11: Comparison of Survey & National Figures by Outcome of Appeal.
Survey Respondents
Appeals Received (Appeals Office)
50
45
Respondents were asked why they thought their appeal was allowed or disallowed. Half of those whose
40
appeal was allowed or partially allowed replied that new information/evidence was the reason for their
35
appeal being allowed, 41% of those whose appeal was allowed or partially allowed felt that preparation/
30
presentation of their case led to a successful outcome.
25
20
If your appeal was allowed, why do you think this was?
15
Number
% of those whose appeal was
allowed/partially allowed
Different interpretation of rules
14
18%
New information/evidence
38
50%
Preparation/presentation of case
31
41%
Other
9
12%
10
5
0
Old Age
Payments
Widows,
Widowers &
1-Parent Family
Payments
Child
Related
Payments
Illness
& Disability
Unemployment Supplementary
Supports
Welfare
Allowances
Other
Chart 2: Breakdown of Appeals by Category.
Outcome of Appeal:
More than half (51%) of the survey respondents had a positive outcome (i.e. Allowed or Partially Allowed)
to their appeal.
Table 11: Reasons for Appeal Allowed/Partially Allowed.74
Whereas amongst respondents whose appeal was disallowed, 29% felt it was due to poor preparation/
presentation of their case, and 25% felt that their appeal was disallowed due to a lack of new evidence/
information.
Unfortunately, we cannot have a definitive comparison of the outcome of appeal amongst the survey group
and Social Welfare Appeals Office data as we cannot establish the numbers of appeals which were revised
by the Deciding Officer during the survey period. However, if we are to exclude the “Revised by Deciding
Officer” figures from the Social Welfare Appeals Office data, the breakdown is as shown below.
73 Further detail contained in Appendix 1.
40
74 Respondents were asked to tick all answers that applied.
41
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
If your appeal was disallowed, why do you think this was?
Poor preparation/presentation of case
Appeal Outcome
Number
% of those whose appeal was
allowed/partially allowed
17
29%
No new evidence/information
15
25%
Did not understand appeals system
14
24%
Other
8
14%
Table 11: Reasons for Appeals Disallowed.
Category
Old Age Payments
Widows, Widowers & 1-Parent Families
Child Related Payments
Illness & Disability
Appeal Outcome/Category of Payment:
When the appeal outcome is looked at by payment category, there are marked variations.75 Within the
Caring
larger category of Illness and Disability (72 respondents) 62% had their appeal allowed or partially allowed.
In contrast, 57% of respondents who had appealed an Unemployment Benefit decision (21 respondents)
Unemployment Assistance
had their appeal disallowed.
Unemployment Benefit
Again, there can be any number of reasons for such variations across categories including internal
departmental review mechanisms and complexity of schemes. Within this project it is not possible to
Supplementary Welfare Allowances
establish the reasons for such variations.
Other
Total
Allowed
Partially
Allowed
Disallowed
Withdrew
Appeal
Total
67%
-
33%
-
100%
2
-
1
-
3
11%
-
78%
11%
100%
1
-
7
1
9
100%
-
-
-
100%
2
-
-
-
2
58%
4%
35%
3%
100%
42
3
25
2
72
58%
-
42%
-
100%
7
-
5
-
12
44%
11%
44%
-
100%
4
1
4
-
9
38%
5%
57%
-
100%
8
1
12
-
21
33%
33%
33%
-
100%
1
1
1
-
3
40%
10%
40%
10%
100%
4
1
4
1
10
50%
5%
42%
3%
100%
71
7
59
4
141
Table 14: Appeal Outcome by Payment Category.
Representation:
Only eight respondents stated that they had a representative/advocate during the oral hearing. Of these,
Northside Community Law Centre represented 2 respondents, 3 were represented by family members and
1 was represented by a friend (details were not given by the remaining 2 respondents). Given that these
figures are so small (and it was unlikely that those represented by family members/friends were represented
by experienced advocates), it is difficult to draw any reliable conclusions from the survey regarding the
impact of representation.
75 All of those (100%) who appealed a decision regarding a child related payment had their appeal allowed – however, this only amounted
to two respondents and cannot be relied upon.
42
43
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that a marginally higher proportion of those who had a representative
Prior to Appeal:
had their appeal allowed than amongst the overall group of respondents - 13% of those with a representative/
Understanding of Decision:
advocate had their appeal partially allowed (3% of all respondents stated that their appeal was partially
Respondents were asked whether they understood the initial decision – 81 responded positively, 64
allowed).
responded that they did not understand the initial decision. While this means that the majority (56%) of those
who responded to the question stated that they understood the initial decision, there is still a significant
Outcome of Appeal
minority (44% of those who responded) who did not.
Appeal Outcome
Representative/Advocate
All Respondents
Allowed
Partially Allowed
Disallowed
4
1
3
50%
13%
38%
71
5
59
48%
3%
40%
Did you understand the initial decision?
Yes
No
Table 15: Outcome of Appeal: Impact of Representative/Advocate.
Impact of Representation
Appeal Outcome
Allowed
Partially Allowed
Disallowed
Total
When asked whether they understood the reason for that decision 55 respondents (38% of those who
Number
1
0
1
2
replied to the question) answered that they did not understood the rationale for that decision. Clearly there
%
50%
0%
50%
100%
is an issue regarding the communication of decisions by the Department of Social and Family Affairs, and
Number
3
1
1
5
helpful
the fact that not only do a significant minority not understand the initial decisionNot
butat aallconsiderable
minority
%
60%
20%
20%
100%
Number
0
0
1
1
%
0%
0%
100%
100%
In this context, it is relevant to note that there is significant variation across the categories of payment as to
Number
4
1
3
8
the levels of those who understood the initial decision, and the rationale for that decision (See Tables 17
%
50%
13%
38%
100%
Category of Payment
Old Age
Illness & Disability
Unemployment Benefit
Total
Were they helpful in preparing for your appeal
(Number of Respondents)?
do not understand the reasoning behind the decision.
Slightly helpful
Reasonably helpful
Quite helpful
Very helpful
and 18 below).
Table 16: Impact of Representation: Outcome of Appeal by Payment Type.
44
45
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
Did you understand the initial decision?
Category
Old Age Payments
Widows, Widowers & 1-Parent Families
Child Related Payments
Illness & Disability
Caring
Unemployment Assistance
Unemployment Benefit
Supplementary Welfare Allowances
Other
Total
Table 17: Understanding of Initial Decision by Payment Type.
Did you understand the reason for the initial decision?
Yes
No
1
2
33%
67%
6
3
67%
33%
1
1
50%
50%
34
40
46%
54%
8
4
67%
33%
6
4
60%
40%
16
6
73%
27%
1
2
33%
67%
8
2
80%
20%
81
64
56%
44%
Category
Old Age Payments
Widows, Widowers & 1-Parent Families
Child Related Payments
Illness & Disability
Caring
Unemployment Assistance
Unemployment Benefit
Supplementary Welfare Allowances
Other
Total
Yes
No
1
2
33%
67%
5
4
56%
44%
1
1
50%
50%
18
56
24%
76%
4
7
36%
64%
5
5
50%
50%
13
10
57%
44%
2
2
50%
50%
6
4
60%
40%
55
91
38%
62%
Table 18: Understanding of Reason for initial decision by Payment Type.
Payments within the Illness and Disability category tend to be particularly intricate and complex with a
degree of judgement involved (particularly regarding medical issues), as opposed to Unemployment Benefit
which tends to be much more straightforward in its application and is regulated by clear guidelines. This
appears to be reflected in the responses regarding understanding of the initial decision and reasons for that
decision. More than half of those who responded to the question (54%) whose appeal related to an Illness
and Disability payment did not understand the initial decision. More than three-quarters (76%) of those
did not understand the reason for that decision. In contrast, of those (who answered the question) whose
appeal related to Unemployment Benefit just over a quarter (27%) did not understand the initial decision
and a significant minority (44% of those who responded in that category) did not understand the reason.
46
47
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
Informed of Right to Appeal:
Made Aware of Right to Appeal?
The majority of respondents (121 or 85% of those who responded to that question) replied that they were
In writing?
informed of their right to appeal in writing.76 In contrast, only 29 (19% of all respondents or 41% of those
who answered the question) respondents replied they were informed verbally of their right to appeal. It
is quite possible/probable that a higher number of people were informed verbally of their right to appeal.
Human nature is such that people may not have understood what they were told, or may not remember
being told (particularly in the context of having being told that their claim was unsuccessful).
13 respondents replied negatively to both questions i.e. they replied that they were not informed in writing
or verbally of their right to appeal. However, all unsuccessful applicants are informed by the Department of
Social and Family Affairs of their right to appeal.77 This survey indicates that this communication mechanism
is not always effective; to the extent that 15% of those who replied stated that they had not been informed
in writing of their right to appeal (the natural question is how did they arrive at an appeal if they had not
been informed of their right to appeal).
Again, there was significant variation across the categories of payment (Table 19 below).
Category
Old Age Payments
Widows, Widowers & 1-Parent Families
Child Related Payments
Illness & Disability
Caring
Unemployment Assistance
Unemployment Benefit
Supplementary Welfare Allowances
Other
Total
Verbally
Yes
No
Yes
No
2
0
1
0
100%
0%
100%
0%
7
2
2
4
78%
22%
33%
67%
2
0
0
0
100%
0%
0%
0%
61
11
8
23
85%
15%
26%
74%
11
1
1
3
92%
8%
25%
75%
8
1
3
2
89%
11%
60%
40%
18
4
9
5
82%
18%
64%
36%
3
1
2
1
75%
25%
67%
33%
9
1
3
3
90%
10%
50%
50%
121
21
29
41
85%
15%
41%
59%
Table 19: Informed of Right to Appeal.
Information & Advice:
Respondents were asked whether they went anywhere for information or advice following the initial
decision. The majority of respondents (82) didn’t do so, primarily as they were unaware that such services
were available.78 Only 3 respondents replied that they did not seek information or advice as they were
familiar with the appeals system, 28 respondents replied that they had enough information. Other reasons
given for not seeking information or advice included a lack of money to pay for legal advice.
76 All unsuccessful applicants are informed in writing of their right to appeal (see below n. 77). 77 This information is contained in the letter
informing them that their application was unsuccessful.
48
78 This finding mirrors research in the UK which established that social security appellants seek advice most often from Citizens Advice Bureaux
(Genn, H., and Genn, Y., The Effectiveness of Representation at Tribunals – Report to the Lord Chancellor, 1989 at p. 242).
49
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
50
Sources of Information
45
40
Source
35
Citizens Information Centre
21
30
ICTU Centre for the Unemployed
2
25
Free Legal Advice Centre (FLAC)
1
20
Doctor
8
15
Community Welfare Officer
6
10
DSFA Local Office
4
Social Worker
5
Local TD
4
Solicitor
2
Ombudsman
2
Northside Community Law Centre
2
Friend
2
DSFA Website
1
Of those who sought information and advice, 37 respondents said they did so because they needed more
Accountant
1
information, 32 respondents replied that they had sought information or advice because they did not understand
Appeals Office
1
the appeals system and 13 replied “Other”. Other reasons for seeking information or advice included:
Public Health Nurse
1
MABS
1
Total
64
5
0
Had enough
information
Familiar
with appeals
system
Did not know
information/advice
was available
Other
Chart 4: Reasons for not seeking information or advice.
g
Did not agree with decision,
g
Did not understand decision,
g
Dyslexic,
g
English not first language,
g
Was not getting answers.79
Sources of Information:
Sources of information and advice were wide-ranging – one-third of those who sought advice (33% or 21
respondents) sought information from a Citizens Information Centre. Sources of information are outlined in
Table 20 (below).
Number of Respondents
Table 20: Sources of Information/Advice.
Services Provided
Most of those who sought information/advice replied that they were given advice about taking an appeal
(55% of those who sought advice/35 respondents) and almost 23% of those who sought advice (15
respondents) were provided with forms. Only 3 respondents (5% of those who sought advice) were provided
with representation, however many of the information/advice sources would not provide representation/
advocacy services (e.g. Doctor, Community Welfare Officer, DSFA Local Office).
Respondents who had sought information/advice were asked to categorise how helpful the information/
advice source was in preparing for their appeal. Only 6% of those who sought advice (4 respondents)
regarded the information/advice as “Not at all helpful”.
79 It would appear from the questionnaire that this referred to the Department of Social and Family Affairs (rather than the Social Welfare
Appeals Office). However, this cannot be clarified.
50
51
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
What did they do that was most helpful?
What services did they provide?
Service
Number of Respondents
Service
Number of Respondents
% of those who sought
advice
Provided
Forms
Did
you understand the initial decision?
Yes
15
Gave Advice about taking appeal
No
35
Provided Forms
9
14%
Helped complete forms and paperwork
11
Gave Advice about taking appeal
28
44%
Representation at appeal hearing
3
Helped complete forms & paperwork
8
13%
Other - Obtained Further Evidence
3
Representation at appeal hearing
5
8%
Other - Photocopying
1
Other - Obtained Further Evidence
3
5%
Other - Wrote to DSFA
1
Other - Made Enquiries
1
2%
Other - Made Enquiries
1
Other - No Help
2
3%
Other - No Help
2
Table 22: Services provided by Information/Advice Source.
Table 21: Services provided by Information/Advice Sources.
Outcome of Appeal
Those who sought information and advice had a higher success rate with 65% of those who sought
information and advice having their appeal allowed or partially allowed (see further Table 23 below).
Not at all helpful
Were they helpful in preparing for your appeal
(Number of Respondents)?
Slightly helpful
Did you go anywhere for advice or information after the initial decision?
Reasonably helpful
Quite helpful
Appeal Outcome
Very helpful
Yes
No
Total
Allowed
Partially
Allowed
Disallowed
Withdrew
Appeal
Total
37
3
21
1
62
60%
5%
34%
2%
100%
34
4
37
3
78
44%
5%
47%
4%
100%
71
7
58
4
140
51%
5%
41%
3%
100%
Table 23: Impact of Advice & Information on Outcome of Appeal.
Chart 5: Categorisation of Information/Advice Sources.
Advice about taking an appeal was regarded as the most helpful service (See Table 22 below).80
80 It should be noted that there is a discrepancy in the responses. While only 3 respondents replied that representation was among the services
provided, 5 replied that representation was the most useful service provided.
52
53
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
Oral Hearing:
The issue of medical evidence, medical examinations/reports and medical assessors arose consistently as
Over half the respondents (52% / 77 respondents) replied that they attended an oral hearing for their
issues which were not understood during the oral hearing. Similar areas of concern were emphasised during
appeal, while only 10% (8 respondents) of those had a representative/advocate during the oral hearing.81
the qualitative interviews outlined in Section 4.
Oral Hearing
Representative/Advocate
Anything not understood
Opportunity to speak/respond
Not surprisingly, there was a much higher level of respondents who said that they did not understand
Yes
No
everything during the appeal hearing amongst those whose appeal was disallowed (See further Table 26
8
71
below).
10%
92%
20
56
26%
73%
72
9
94%
12%
Was there anything you did not understand during the appeal hearing?
Appeal Outcome
Yes
Table 24: Oral Hearing (Percentages are of the number who attended an oral hearing). 82
No
The vast majority (94%) of those who attended an oral hearing felt that they had been given an opportunity
to speak/respond to issues raised during the oral hearing.
Over one-quarter (26% / 20 respondents) who attended an oral hearing did not understand everything
Total
Allowed
Partially Allowed
Disallowed
3
0
16
8%
0%
48%
35
3
17
92%
100%
52%
38
3
33
100%
100%
100%
Table 26: Understanding during Oral Hearing by Appeal Outcome.
during the appeal hearing, there is no variation amongst those who had a representative/advocate and
General Comments
those who didn’t. Table 24 below highlights the areas which were not understood.
Overall, there was a fairly even breakdown amongst those who found the social welfare appeals system fair
Oral Hearing
and easy to use.
Number of
Respondents
% of those
who attended
Oral Hearing
Contradictory medical evidence/Dismissal of Medical Evidence
5
6%
Not seeking full medical examination/report
2
3%
Disbelieving attitude of Medical Assessor
1
1%
Language Barrier (English not being first language)
1
1%
Length of Process
2
3%
Decision making process
4
5%
Overall Oral Hearing
2
3%
Overall Appeals System
1
1%
Area not understood
Table 25: Oral Hearing (Areas not understood).
Perception of Social Welfare Appeal System
Fair
Easy to Use
Yes
No
Number
63
63
% of total
43%
43%
Number
58
48
% of total
39%
33%
Table 27: Perception of Social Welfare Appeals System.
When looked at according to payment category, 74% (of those who replied) whose appeal related to
Unemployment Benefit did not regard the appeals system as fair, which may relate to the complex nature of
81 This is significantly lower than the 35% of those who are represented during an appeal in Northern Ireland. See further Section 2 at p. 38.
82 There is a discrepancy amongst the responses – 77 respondents answered that they had attended an oral hearing, yet higher numbers
(contained in Table 23) responded to the questions about the oral hearing.
54
55
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
the scheme involved. Similarly, 86% of those who replied whose appeal related to Widows, Widowers and
In your experience, was the social welfare appeals system fair?
One-Parent Families felt that the system was not easy to use. Again, One Parent Family Payment in particular
Category
Old Age Payments
Widows, Widowers & 1-Parent Families
Child Related Payments
Illness & Disability
Caring
Unemployment Allowance
Unemployment Benefit
Supplementary Welfare Allowances
Other
Total
Yes
No
Yes
Partially Allowed
No
2
1
1
2
67%
33%
33%
67%
4
4
1
6
50%
50%
14%
86%
1
-
-
-
100%
-
-
-
39
29
39
18
57%
43%
68%
32%
5
6
4
5
46%
55%
44%
56%
4
5
3
5
44%
56%
38%
63%
5
14
5
10
26%
74%
33%
67%
-
3
1
2
-
100%
33%
67%
3
1
4
-
75%
25%
100%
-
63
63
58
48
50%
50%
75%
45%
Total
49
11
60
82%
18%
100%
3
3
6
50%
50%
100%
9
45
54
17%
83%
100%
0
3
3
% within Appeal Outcome
0%
100%
100%
Number
61
62
123
50%
50%
100%
% within Appeal Outcome
Perceptions of Appeals System by Payment Category
Easy to use
No
Number
Allowed
Fair
Yes
Appeal Outcome
is extremely complex which may be reflected in those results.
Number
% within Appeal Outcome
Number
Disallowed
% within Appeal Outcome
Withdrew Appeal
Total
Number
% within Appeal Outcome
Table 29: Perception of Social Welfare Appeals System by Appeal Outcome.
In your experience, was the social welfare appeals system easy to use?
Appeal Outcome
Allowed
Partially Allowed
Disallowed
Withdrew Appeal
Total
Number
% within Appeal Outcome
Number
% within Appeal Outcome
Number
% within Appeal Outcome
Number
% within Appeal Outcome
Number
% within Appeal Outcome
Yes
No
Total
36
16
52
69%
31%
100%
5
2
7
71%
29%
100%
14
29
43%
33%
67%
100%
1
1
2
50%
50%
100%
56
48
104
54%
46%
100%
Table 28: Perceptions of Appeals System by Payment Category.
Table 30: Perception of Social Welfare Appeals System by Appeal Outcome.
Perhaps predictably, the appeal outcome affected whether respondents felt the appeals system was fair
and easy to use. Of those who replied to the question, 82% of those whose appeal was allowed found the
system fair, whereas only 17% of those whose appeal was disallowed (and replied to the question) found
the system fair. Similarly, 69% those who replied to the question and had their appeal allowed found the
system easy to use, whereas only 33% of those whose appeal was disallowed (and replied to the question)
found the system fair.
56
Changes to the Social Welfare Appeals System:
Respondents were asked “What three changes would help make the Social Welfare Appeals System fairer
and more accessible?”83
Responses can be broadly divided into the following categories:
83 Many of the suggestions also arose during the qualitative interviews with appellants and during meetings with community and voluntary
organisations providing services for those taking an appeal. For further detail see Section 5 and Section 6.
57
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
Medical Assessors & Examinations:
Communication & Accessibility:
Almost a quarter (23% / 34) of respondents felt the use of medical information and examinations needed
Communications were key issues amongst respondents including improvements in communications from
to be improved. Suggestions included the use of a more thorough medical examination, the use of an
the appeals office (suggested by 7 (5%) of respondents) and in particular, developments/updates on the
independent medical examiner, greater consideration being given to reports from the appellant’s doctor
progress of appeals should be provided. Furthermore, 4 (3%) of respondents stated that there should be a
and medical history. It was also felt that when the appellants own medical evidence is not accepted an
better explanation for the rationale of the decision of the Appeals Officer. Respondents also suggested the
explanation as to why this was the case should be given.84
following improvements:
Some Medical Assessors were criticised by respondents for their perceived lack of compassion and
g
Greater assistance for appellants with low literacy levels,
understanding towards appellants (most particularly for their perceived attitude towards depression and
g
Provision of information in languages other than English,
psychological conditions).
g
Helplines,
g
Reduction in the levels of “red-tape” and bureaucracy.
Information:
22 (15%) of respondents stated that a greater level of information regarding the appeals system and taking
Oral Hearing:
an appeal should be made available, while 6 (4%) felt that greater information and support when using the
An automatic right to an oral hearing was suggested by 5 (3%) respondents and 6 (4%) respondents felt that
appeals system should be made available in their local office.
there should be an automatic right to representation.
Interpersonal Skills:
Summary
17 (12%) of respondents stated that there needs to be an improvement in interpersonal skills amongst staff
Postal questionnaires were distributed to 485 appellants, 147 responded. 51% of respondents had
their appeal allowed or partially allowed.
and personnel responsible. Respondents reported feeling that they had been demeaned and humiliated
and wrote that officials had not shown understanding or compassion.85
Delays:
The delays in the appeals process were mentioned by 15 (10%) respondents as an area which could be
improved. While there have been improvements in this area (the average time to process an appeal was 21
weeks in 2003 a reduction of 2 weeks on the previous year), delays may still be a cause of financial hardship
and other difficulties.
Location:
The location of oral hearings was mentioned by 10 (7%) of respondents who felt that hearings should be
held at a more local level making the hearings more accessible. Currently appeals are held at a number of
different locations throughout the country. All Dublin based appeals are held in the city centre.
Less than half the respondents (who answered the question) replied they were informed of their right
to appeal verbally.
According to respondents, new information/evidence and preparation/presentation of case were the most
common reasons for appeals being allowed. Lack of understanding of the Appeals System was the most
common reason for an appeal being disallowed according to respondents. Of those who responded a
majority (56%) understand the initial decision, but a minority (38%) understand the reason for the decision.
The majority of respondents (55%) did not seek information/advice, primarily as they were unaware
that such services were available. The most common source of information/advice is a Citizens
Information Centre. Only 8 respondents replied that they had a representative/advocate present for
the oral hearing.
52% of respondents attended an oral hearing. 26% of those who attended an oral hearing did not
understand everything during the appeal.
43% of respondents replied that they found the social welfare appeals system fair, 39% responded that
they found it easy to use.
Improvements suggested by respondents include:
g
g
Meaningful Participation:
g
9 (6%) respondents wrote that they felt that they had not been listened to sufficiently.
g
g
g
More thorough medical examinations,
Explanations as to rationale for decisions,
Greater provision of information,
Improvement in interpersonal skills,
Speedier appeals process,
Greater communication and increased accessibility.
84 A situation appearing to conflict with Kiely v. Minister for Social Welfare. 85 It is not possible to clarify whether respondents were referring
to staff within the Department of Social and Family Affairs or the Social Welfare Appeals Office.
58
59
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
Section 4 – Qualitative Interviews
When asked for any suggestions as to changes which should be made to the Appeals System the interviewee
proposed a system similar to the UK. He felt that there should be a “panel system”, which would have a
Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were held with 6 appellants (interviewees) all of whom had been
panel of experts (independent from any government departments) which would hear cases. These would
represented during their oral hearing. Organisations providing services to those taking a social welfare appeal
be separate from the administration of the appeals system, and would have no ongoing contact with
were asked to approach former clients and discuss their participation in the research project; if clients were
the Department. Members would be drawn from the panel according to their relevant expertise and the
agreeable in principle, they were then contacted by the researcher. This approach was adopted in order to
particular circumstances of the individual case. He also felt that cases should not be heard and decided by
ensure confidentiality was fully protected and data-protection concerns did not arise.
one individual, but that there should be three “panellists” hearing each case.
Of those interviewed for the purposes of this particular piece of research 5 were clients of the Northside
A further suggestion was that written minutes/records would be made of each case and forwarded to
Community Law Centre and 1 was a client of the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed. All had
the appellant before any decision was taken, thereby providing an opportunity to correct any mistakes.
attended an oral hearing and had an advocate/representative present during the hearing. All had their
Subsequent to decision, these would then become matters of “public record” (in a manner protecting
appeals allowed or partially allowed. The type of scheme the appeals related to were Disablement Benefit
confidentiality) ensuring that they could then be relied on as “precedents”. The interviewee pointed out
(x 1), Disability Allowance (x 1), Disability Benefit (x 2), One Parent Family Payment (x 2).
that this would lead to a far greater consistency, both at the initial decision stage and at the appeal stage
and would be of benefit to the decision-maker and the applicant.
This particular section briefly outlines the details of the six appeals and then draws together common
themes and issues which arose during the interviews.
g
g
Interviewee 1 – Disablement Benefit:
The interviewee had been injured at work during the 1970s and then suffered a later work-related injury.
He had been out of work since the early 1980s. His disability had been assessed and he was categorised
having a disablement level of 30%. It was this particular categorisation which he was appealing. He
had numerous medical reports from his own GP and specialists outlining the level of his disability as
being higher than as assessed by the Medical Assessor. He had also been assessed by an independent
specialist, specifically for the purposes of his appeal. He had appealed the decision a number of times
and (at the previous appeals) received incremental increases rather than being categorised as fully or
100% disabled.
The interviewee’s appeal was “partially allowed” which he strongly felt was due to having a representative
present his case (there had been no change in his circumstances since an earlier review which had been
disallowed). He pointed out that he would not have known how or where to get his file or other relevant
paperwork (or that he was entitled to such access), and had no medical experience himself when
presenting or interpreting medical reports.
The interviewee felt that the Social Welfare Appeals Office was not independent of the Department of
Social and Family Affairs, and that the Appeals Officer felt bound to act on the advice of the Medical
Assessor (an employee of the Department). He felt that reports from his own GP and specialists were
not treated with the same regard. He also felt that the regular contact and liaison between the Appeals
Office and the Department of Social and Family Affairs would inevitably lead to some level of bias.
60
Interviewee 2 – One Parent Family Payment
The interviewee, recently separated, had been turned down for the One Parent Family Payment as she
“had made insufficient efforts to seek maintenance”. While she had sought maintenance, she had not
sought a court order for maintenance, as she had not understood that this was necessary in order for
her to be eligible for One Parent Family Payment.
When informed of the initial decision, she did not understand what was meant by “insufficient efforts
to seek maintenance”. She found it very difficult to get any clarification as to what this meant, and was
referred to a number of different sections of the Department. She felt that it should be straightforward
to receive an explanation as to why she had been refused payment; but found she was referred to
other sections without an answer. At a practical level her phone call to a Departmental section in Dublin
could not be transferred, to the One Parent Family Payment Section in Sligo, copies of her forms were
lost between sections and she also felt that a number of the personnel she dealt with had low “interpersonal skills”.
The interviewee pointed out that the events leading to her claiming One Parent Family Payment were
personally traumatic and difficult. Both she and her family had gone though enormous upheaval and
emotional stress; she felt the manner in which her case was dealt with by the Department added to
these difficulties and stress. She did not feel that the personnel within the Department understood the
impact of domestic violence or the affect that their decisions may have. Specifically, she was afraid that
seeking a court order for maintenance might have triggered further violent behaviour but was obliged
to seek such an order to satisfy the requirements of the Department.
61
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
The interviewee suggested a number of practical changes which could be made to the Appeals System
g
Interviewee 4 – Disability Benefit
– internal communications systems within the Department should be improved to ensure forms/
The interviewee had suffered damage to her hearing due to the nature of her work (she had worked
paperwork are not lost and that an appellant can have her query dealt with within one phone-call or
in a sewing factory since the age of 13). When she applied for Disability Benefit she was categorised
has one contact person responsible for answering any queries. She also suggested that all available
as “fit for work” as it was felt that she could obtain work where her impaired hearing would not be an
information should be forwarded to the appellant automatically. Similarly every effort should be made
issue. The interviewee had no work experience outside of a sewing factory, no formal educational
to ensure that the appellant understands the rationale for the initial decision being made.
qualifications and was not functionally literate. She had previously returned to work (as she had not
been able to obtain any alternative employment), but had suffered further damage to her hearing due
g
The delay involved before the appeal hearing (and financial difficulties this caused) was also mentioned.
to her work environment.
Interviewee 3 – One Parent Family Payment
The interviewee had not realised that she was entitled to her file through the Freedom of Information
The interviewee had immigrated to Ireland from Nigeria a number of years previously. Her former
Act, and found it “strange” that the information was not forwarded automatically or, at a minimum, that
husband had remained in Nigeria. She had sought One Parent Family Payment but her claim was rejected
she had not been told by the Department that her information was on file (while she may have been
as she was not regarded as separated from her spouse. Her appeal was allowed (this was her second
informed that she could access her file, it was not communicated in an accessible manner). She found
appeal) without any new evidence/information or change in circumstances, however no back-payment
the appeals process very intimidating and inaccessible due to her literacy difficulties – she had found
was granted.
it necessary to ask family members to assist her in writing the initial appeal letter which she stated she
found to be demeaning. She suggested that there should be some mechanism whereby appeals could
The interviewee felt that the only reason her appeal had been allowed was due to her having a
be lodged by phone or in person, thereby ensuring that literacy difficulties were not a barrier. She felt
representative/advocate present who was familiar with the Irish Appeals System. While she had an
that if there were such a system in place, there would be a greater number of appeals lodged than
advocate at the previous appeal, the advocate had not been familiar with the Irish system and language
currently is the case. During the appeals process information should be made available in an accessible
barriers were also an issue (for both the advocate and the interviewee).
manner rather than merely forwarding a pile of paperwork.
The interviewee felt that had she been from a different background and culture that the initial decision
She also felt that there should be an automatic right to advice and representation (if the current system
may have been different. Her Community Welfare Officer (with whom she had a positive relationship)
of the Appeal Office were to remain in place). The interviewee had not been aware that there were
told her to appeal the decision, as there were other cases with similar circumstances where the payment
advice and information services available; and only became aware of the services available through a
was granted.
“friend of a friend”.
The interviewee suggested that changes should be made to the Appeals System which would enable it
The interviewee also felt that the medical examination by the Medical Assessor was extremely cursory
to become more accessible to those for whom English was not their first language. She also was very
in nature. She stated she had previously attended for examination but the Medical Assessor did not
emphatic that there should be a greater level of consistency and fairness within the decision-making
attend, and on a further occasion when the Medical Assessor was present but did not have the requisite
process, and that decisions (including the rationale for those decisions) should be a matter of public
equipment to examine her. Overall, she stated that she felt that she was not treated with dignity or
record.86 She pointed out a number of times that there was absolutely no change in circumstance, nor
respect, and felt demeaned and degraded while trying to obtain her entitlements.
was there any new information/evidence available during her second appeal hearing – however her
appeal was allowed on the second occasion. She felt that having a successful appeal appeared to be
g
Interviewee 5 – Disability Benefit
as a result of persistence and the presence of an advocate. From this she felt that the appeals system
The interviewee had been employed (manual labour) within a local factory for 29 years. She had
was inherently unfair and inconsistent. The interviewee also mentioned the impact of the length of time
suffered a back injury and was unable to return to work. She had unsuccessfully applied for Disability
between lodging her appeal and the oral hearing.
Benefit as she had been classified as “fit for work” of a non-manual nature. The particular company had
86 In this context it is interesting to note that a different organisation had provided services to another client within similar circumstances.
There is also a case-study contained in the Annual Report of the Social Welfare Appeals Office.
62
63
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
nothing suitable available. As she had worked for 29 years with the one company, she would have lost
The interviewee did approach an organisation for advice, but found that they were not in a position to
substantial pension and other benefits were she to leave that particular employer. It was also unlikely
help her as they did not understand the details of the relevant scheme – she subsequently availed of the
that she would be able to obtain suitable employment, given her particular employment history (having
services of another organisation.
worked in a specific job-role since leaving school) and lack of qualifications. Her employer had stated
that her job would be “kept open” if and when she were fit to return to work.
Again, the interviewee felt that having representation was crucial to her appeal being allowed. She would
“not have known where to start”. Although she found the Appeals Officer who heard her appeal quite
Again, the interviewee felt that her appeal had been allowed due to her having a representative at the
friendly and approachable, the entire experience was intimidating and daunting. Having the appeals
oral hearing, as there were no changes in her circumstances or the information/evidence available. The
process and oral hearing explained to her in advance also ensured that she was more confident and
interviewee felt that the Medical Assessors had not taken her particular circumstances or independent
comfortable during the hearing.
medical reports into account.
The interviewee highlighted the fact that appeals had to be made in writing. She thought that a phone
When asked for suggestions for changes to the Appeals System, the primary change suggested was
service 87 would ensure a greater level of accessibility and participation in the appeals system. She also
an attitudinal one. The interviewee stated that during the entire process she felt that she was regarded
pointed out that she was not told that her file was available to her through the Freedom of Information
as being dishonest and seeking to obtain payments dishonestly and fraudulently (although she did
legislation (again, while this inofmration may have been communicated to her, it was not done so in
stress that this was not during the oral hearing rather during the initial assessments and reviews of her
an accessible manner). When she contacted the Appeals Office to ask what information she should
application). She felt degraded during the medical assessments and reviews and believed that the “onus
obtain for her appeal, she was told to gather “whatever was useful”, and not given any specific advice.
of proof” was on her rather during the initial assessment and reviews rather than it being an unbiased
Despite the fact that the interviewee had taken a pro-active approach towards preparing her appeal,
investigation. She stressed that the only change between the reviews of her claim and the oral hearing
and initiated contact with the Appeals Office to check what information she should have available for
was the presence of an advocate. “Even though I had nothing new to say, I had to get a solicitor to say
the appeal, she did not remember being informed that she could obtain a copy of her file.
it for them to believe me”.
Common Themes:
The interviewee further suggested that information and advice should be available automatically, and that
There were a number of common themes and issues arising repeatedly during the course of the interviews.
everyone should be referred to an information and advice service on being informed of their right to appeal.
Interviewees were unanimous that representation affected the outcome of their appeal. It was also felt
that the system is inaccessible and not user-friendly, both when lodging an appeal and during the appeal
g
Interviewee 6 – Disability Allowance
process. The delay between lodging an appeal and the oral hearing, and the financial difficulties this can
The interviewee (a lone parent) was claiming Disability Allowance when she started a FÁS Community
cause, was also highlighted. Questions were also raised about the independence and impartiality of the
Employment (CE) Scheme. She had not been told that she was not entitled to keep her Disability
appeals process (perhaps surprisingly, as all interviewees had a favourable outcome). Finally, the impact of
Allowance while on a CE Scheme, which continued to be paid for some months. The interviewee was
the appeals process on the individual was regarded by some interviewees as demeaning and humiliating.
subsequently told that the payment was being stopped and that she was obliged to refund almost
E3,000. Had the interviewee been claiming One Parent Family Payment (for which she was qualified)
Impact of Representation
she could have continued both on the CE Scheme and claiming her social welfare payment. Her appeal
Interviewees were asked why they thought their appeal was allowed – without exception everyone
was against the repayment demand.
volunteered that they felt having representation was of significant impact during their appeal and influenced
the eventual outcome. Two people felt that their appeal was allowed due to a different interpretation of the
The interviewee found it difficult to get information regarding her right to appeal and the process involved.
information/evidence, but that this was due to having a representative present to put their case forward
Initially the Department did not contact her directly, rather it contacted FÁS who were running the CE
rather than any change in circumstances or information available.
Scheme – she then contacted the Department who outlined the situation to her (and subsequently
forwarded a letter).
87 Similar to that in Australia.
64
65
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
There were two elements to the perceived impact of representation arising during the interviews. Firstly, a
Attitudinal issues:
representative is familiar with the appeals system and process, is unlikely to be intimidated during an oral
All of those interviewed felt that they went into the appeal with the onus of proof on them. They stated they
hearing, and will be articulate and familiar with presenting a case. One interviewee stated that she felt that
felt they had been treated with suspicion and little respect when making an initial claim, seeking a review
she would have lost her appeal without a representative as she “wouldn’t have known where to start”. The
or seeking information regarding their appeal. Interviewees reported feeling that they were regarded as
second element is slightly more intangible, interviewees felt that having a representative means that “you
attempting to make fraudulent or dishonest claims, of being “spongers, looking for something [they] were
are listened to, and taken more seriously” and that having a representative there “probably changed their
not entitled to”. While it was stressed that they did not feel this was the attitude of the Appeals Officer at the
decision as they knew [the interviewee] was serious, and wasn’t going to let it go”.
oral hearing, they felt that other officials (within the Department) did not tend to take them at their word.
“Demeaning” and “Degrading” were constantly used to describe how interviewees felt when seeking to claim
Accessibility of Appeals System:
payments to which they were entitled.
Some of the obstacles mentioned by interviewees when taking an appeal were being unfamiliar with
the Appeals System, not being effectively informed of the rights to access their file, difficulty in obtaining
Medical Assessors/Disability Payments:
information, not being aware of information and advice services, and literacy issues.
There were a number of matters arising around the issue of medical examinations and assessors. Some
examinations were described as brief and cursory in nature. Some Medical Assessors were described as
All interviewees mentioned that they were unfamiliar with the appeals system and process. The initial lodging
rude and uncaring. One interviewee stated she had attended three times for a medical assessment before
of an appeal posed difficulties due to literacy issues and language barriers – suggestions were made that
her claim could be processed – on the first occasion the Medical Assessor was absent on the day (she was
appeals could be lodged over the phone or in person. It was felt that were such a system available that a
not informed until reaching the building), on the second occasion he did not have the relevant equipment
greater number of appeals would be lodged.
to examine her.
Subsequent to lodging an appeal, interviewees felt that they should be automatically informed that they
It was also pointed out that Medical Assessors were not always specialists and it was felt that some
were entitled to access their file.88 Indeed, most suggested that the file should be forwarded on lodging an
did not have an adequate understanding of their particular disability (although, to be appointed, Medical
appeal. However, it was also highlighted that the information should be in accessible format. One interviewee
Assessors must have at least 6 years experience, many have specialist post-graduate qualifications and all
pointed out that not only was she unaware that there was a file and that she was entitled to access it, when
have received training in “Human Disability Evaluation”). Some interviewees felt the assessment did not take
she did obtain a copy of the file it was meaningless to her (because of her own literacy difficulties). She
into account the impact of the disability on their particular employment (according to interviewees) – some
suggested that the onus should be on the Department to ensure that appellants understood any available
felt they were classified as “fit for work” without taking into account broader issues such as qualifications
information relevant to their case. This could be done through a formal referral system referring appellants
and employment history.
to organisations providing advice and support services.
Furthermore, more than one interviewee felt that the evidence of the medical assessor was taken as
66
Delays:
binding. The evidence of their own doctor was not given the same regard – rather it was seen as “rebutting”
The length of time between lodging an appeal and an oral hearing was routinely mentioned as causing
the medical assessors report. When this is taken in the context of medical assessors being regarded by
difficulties. While it was recognised and acknowledged that there may be complex issues being considered,
some interviewees as departmental employees, it could clearly lead to a perception that the Social Welfare
it was felt that the delays were due to a lack of resources and staffing within the Appeals Office. Particularly
Appeals Office is not truly independent of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Furthermore, in
in the context of the financial hardship often caused by these delays, it was felt vital that they should be
the context of the earlier Kiely Case,89 it would be surprising should the Appeals Officers adopt such an
significantly reduced.
attitude.
88 Leaflets forwarded do include the paragraph “If you wish to obtain any information or documents relied on by the Deciding Officer in
reaching the decision you should contact the Section of the Social Welfare Services which dealt with your claim” SW 56.
This does not appear to be effectively communicating the fact that appellants are entitled to access their file.
89 This is explored in more detail later at p. 112.
67
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
Section 5 – Advice & Advocacy Services
Summary
Qualitative Interviews:
There is a wide range of organisations providing services to clients wishing to take an appeal to the Social
Representation was widely regarded as being of significant impact when taking an appeal. Appeals
were allowed where there were no changes in circumstances, but a representative/advocate presented
the appeal.
Welfare Appeals Office. These services can range from basic advice and information, referral to another
Interviewees felt that reports from Medical Assessors were regarded by Appeals Officers as binding
rather than evidential. They did not feel that the same regard was given to reports from the appellant’s
doctors. Some Medical Assessments were described as cursory in nature and interviewees felt that
Medical Assessors may not necessarily have the specialist knowledge to make informed decision.
at an appeal hearing.
Interviewees stated they felt they were regarded as dishonest and fraudulent. The Appeals System was
not regarded as unbiased investigation; rather the “burden of proof” was seen to be on the appellant.
Suggested Changes:
A number of changes were suggested by interviewees to create a more accessible and fair Social
Welfare Appeals System. These are changes suggested by those participating in the interviews, they are
not necessarily recommendations arising from the research project:
Structure of Appeals System:
g
g
g
A panel of independent experts, separate from the administration of the appeals system,
to be drawn from to hear appeals.
Appeals to be heard by three panellists with relevant expertise.
Automatic right to advice and representation.
organisation, practical assistance in preparing for an appeal, right up to representation/advocacy services
These organisations are in a unique position to provide an overview of the appeals system and the particular
issues and challenges present for those wishing to appeal a decision to the Social Welfare Appeals Office.
To this end, a number of organisations were asked to participate in the research.90 Face-to-face meetings
were held with representatives from:
g
City Centre (Dublin) Citizens Information Service,
g
FLAC (Free Legal Advice Centres),
g
Irish National Organisation for the Unemployed,
g
Northside Community Law Centre,
g
Northside Centre for the Unemployed (Glin Centre), and
g
Larkin Centre for the Unemployed.
Information & Communication:
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
Decisions (and rationale for decisions) to be published.
Written records to be kept of oral hearings.
Appellants to be informed of their right to access their file when being informed of their
right to appeal.
File to be forwarded automatically on lodging appeal.
Automatic referral system to organisation proving advice and support when appeal lodged.
Meetings were held with organisation representatives on a semi-structured interview basis. The meetings
Accessibility:
to identify problems facing individuals taking an appeal without the assistance of any organisation.
Mechanism to be in place whereby appeals can be lodged verbally (by phone or in person).
Appeals System to be made more accessible for those with literacy difficulties and for whom
English is not a first language.
Onus be placed on the Department of Social and Family Affairs to ensure all information
forwarded is readily understood.
covered a range of areas relating to social welfare appeals. Organisations were asked to provide an outline
of the services they provided to social welfare applicants and those wishing to take an appeal; the nature of
the representation/advocacy service provided; the number and type of appeals taken by the organisation
as well as their success rates; and to comment on the Social Welfare Appeals Office. They were also asked
This section provides an overview of the organisations that participated in the meetings and briefly highlights
any specific issues and challenges facing a particular organisation. Common issues and challenges are then
explored and elaborated upon. For ease of reading these are divided into the following areas:
g
Organisational Issues,
g
Barriers to taking an appeal,
g
Appeals Process.
Organisational Issues:
No organisation provided a fully universal service in the sense that all organisations stated that they would
only provide representation/advocacy where the appeal was reasonable. Neither would organisations assist
90 Descriptions of the organisations and services provided are contained in Appendix 2.
68
69
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
persons who did not provide enough information to make a decision as to whether an appeal would be
training is available through a number of different sources further training would be useful, particularly
reasonable or not. Outside of this, only one organisation had taken a strategic decision to limit the type of
around procedural issues.
appeals for which they would provide representation.
Barriers to taking Appeals:
When asked, all organisations felt that the number of cases being brought to them was increasing.
Staffing and resources are the primary barrier to organisations providing a greater level of service for
Reasons given for this perceived increase ranged across:
applicants taking a social welfare appeal. Two of the organisations involved do not have immediate concerns
regarding the levels of resources/staffing available, but recognise that with increasing numbers of clients it
g
Increasingly complex nature of payments and schemes,
may become an issue in the near future. The other organisations find staffing issues the greatest barrier to
g
Greater awareness of the service,
providing a representative/advocacy service.
g
Increased referrals from other organisations,
g
Priority now given to social welfare appeals internally within organisation,
A further difficulty is encountered when a client approaches the organisation late in the appeal process.
g
Increased staffing levels,
Individuals are often not aware that such advice and support services exist, and may seek assistance
g
Increase in immigrant population.
some time after receiving a date for the hearing, which causes difficulties when seeking files and other
information.
Meeting Demands?
Organisations were asked whether they were able to take on all clients who approached them regarding a
For organisations providing a service nationally, geographical considerations place increased demands on
social welfare appeal. Overall, it would be unusual if a client were to approach an organisation and receive no
staff resources particularly where the appeal cannot be referred to an organisation locally.
assistance. However, the demands on some of the organisations are such that they cannot always provide
the service they would like to offer.
Barriers to taking an appeal
When asked to identify issues facing any individual taking a social welfare appeal, there were a number of
Two organisations have taken decisions in the past few years to strategically limit the overall case-load
common themes identified by each organisation:
taken on. One took a decision to only take social welfare appeals where there was a strategic/policy issue
involved, and can provide a service for all of these cases; the other relevant organisation took a decision
Knowledge of System & Procedural Issues:
to limit caseloads in other areas and to prioritise social welfare appeals cases, as a result of this and a
The social welfare system is becoming increasingly complex and detailed. Trained Information Officers
subsequent increase in staffing levels they have found that they are able to provide representation in all
often find that they may not have a comprehensive knowledge of all elements of the social welfare code.
relevant appeals. One of the national organisations has a referral system in place whereby they can often
Taking this into account, it is not surprising that many social welfare applicants do not fully understand the
refer clients to a suitable affiliate association, and through this have been able provide representation/
system or why their initial application has been refused. Quite often, while applicants may have an overall
advocacy for all their clients. However, not all organisations have such a developed referral system and
understanding of the scheme involved, the particular reason for refusal may not be understood.
there have been occasions where at least one organisation has not been able to provide a representative/
advocate for an appeal hearing.
When an applicant does decide to appeal a decision, they may have no understanding or knowledge of
the appeals system. They may not know whether they will be expected to give evidence, whether they can
Training:
bring supporting witnesses, whether there is an oral hearing and/or who sits at that hearing. Indeed, quite
All of the organisations providing representation/advocacy services have ensured that the individuals involved
often the applicant may not have considered any of these issues because they have absolutely no concept
have relevant qualifications or training. Three of the organisations use qualified solicitors to represent clients,
of an appeals process.
and most of the organisations have availed of training provided by groups such as Comhairle, Irish Congress
of Trade Unions and the Irish National Organisation for the Unemployed. In general, it was felt that while
70
Equally, individuals who take an appeal may often not have an understanding of the procedural issues
71
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
involved. While the oral hearing is designed to be an informal one, procedural fairness still applies and there
setting and in this context challenging the decision of a departmental official can be formidable. While it was
are certain procedural rules in place. Without a representative/advocate, individuals taking an appeal can
recognised that, in general, Appeals Officers do their best to ensure that everyone is comfortable and at
be disadvantaged by this lack of knowledge. An example given in this context was in relation to medical
ease it is very often impossible to fully do so.
assessors and medical reports – medical assessors are supposed to forward a questionnaire to the
applicant’s GP; however there have been occasions where this has not been done. An individual taking an
Literacy Skills and/or Language Barriers,
appeal without a representative/advocate may not be aware of this, or may not understand the implications
Literacy issues and language barriers were identified by all organisations as problematic for many clients
for fair procedures.
taking a social welfare appeal. Information is not readily available other than in written format, and it tends
to be in convoluted and at times byzantine language. The use of graphic illustration (as is used by the UK) in
One organisation felt that when informing people that they had been refused a payment, the Department
outlining the appeals system, and implementing a “plain English” policy would be a way of addressing this.
of Social and Family Affairs should also advise them to get assistance if lodging an appeal due to the
complex nature of the system. They also recommended that contact details of agencies providing advice
Similarly, with our increasingly multi-cultural society, it is important that all information should be presented
and representative/advocacy services should be provided to all unsuccessful applicants.
in languages other than English and interpretive services available. Were information available in more
accessible formats, it would ensure that some of the communication issues identified earlier would not be
Access to Information & Files:
a barrier to accessible participation in the appeals process.
Information is often not readily volunteered to those taking a social welfare appeal. Applicants do not know
what information is available to them if they request it, and specifically do not know that they are entitled to
Other issues which were identified by some, but not all organisations interviewed, were:
their file if requested through the Freedom of Information legislation. As expressed by one organisation “if
you don’t ask the right question, you don’t get the right information”.
g
Reason for refusal not clearly stated:
The reason for refusal of a payment tends to be set-out in a “pro-forma” letter, with a number of
All of the organisations interviewed felt that there should be a system in place whereby anyone taking
options listed and the relevant one “ticked” on the letter. By their nature, these pro-forma letters are
an appeal was informed of their right to view their own file. In fact, the majority felt that copies of the
general and do not contain specific details; and can lead to confusion and lack of clarity in particular
individual’s files (and any other relevant information) should be automatically forwarded on lodging an
cases. It also makes it difficult to appeal against such a decision, as the individual does not know what
appeal. Indeed, one organisation suggested that no appeal hearing should take place without the applicant,
specific issue/element they are to appeal.
or their representative, having received the file and that the onus would be on the Appeals Office to ensure
the file had been received.
g
Ineffective informing of “Right to Appeal”:
One organisation felt that individuals are not always properly informed of their right to appeal. While
Communication Abilities & Intimidation by the nature of the system:
applicants are informed in writing of their right to appeal, this may not be done verbally or in an
Many of the clients involved have relatively limited communication skills. They may not be able to articulate
accessible manner.
the basis of their appeal, and may find the complexity of the social welfare system impossible to negotiate
verbally. In this context, it was suggested that a “Plain English Officer” (similar to the existing position in
g
“Inter-personal Skills” & attitudinal issues:
the Department of Social and Family Affairs) be employed within the Social Welfare Appeals Office. The
Three organisations felt there were particular cultural issues within the Department which needed
holder(s) of this post would be responsible for ensuring that all publications were written in a manner which
to be addressed. To illustrate this, they described cases where they had represented non-national
ensured they were readily accessible, easily-understood and jargon-free.
clients under circumstances which they felt would not have reached an appeal had the client been of
a different nationality. All three cases involved lone parents whose (former) spouse was not resident
A fact emphasised by all organisations, was that by its very nature the appeal hearing can be intimidating
in Ireland, yet their claims were rejected as they did not satisfy the definition of “spousal separation”.
and daunting. Quite often it will be the first occasion that the individual has had experience of a tribunal-
72
73
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
At a broader level, organisations felt that some departmental officials did not always treat applicants
rates of those taking an appeal as an indication of the degree of independence of the office. Another felt that
with dignity and respect.91 Organisations felt that some officials regarded social welfare applicants as
the ability to seek a judicial review ensures that, in practise, the Appeals Office operates independently.
dishonest and “on the take”. Similarly, it was felt that cultural issues and differences were not always
understood or taken into account.
Medical Assessors:
All organisations mentioned the Medical Assessors and concerns surrounding the current system. It was felt
Appeals Process
that consultations may sometimes be cursory and rushed not taking into account the often complex nature
Overall, the Social Welfare Appeals Office was regarded by the community and voluntary organisations as
of the complaint concerned.
being easy to work with, relatively accessible and providing a reasonably fair service. The flexibility of the
office when hearings had to be rescheduled was also recognised. All organisations praised the Appeals
In addition the method and forms used for medical assessments were strongly criticised. The fact that “fit
Officers as being fair and trying to put people at ease during the hearings. However, there were a numbers
for work” does not take into account the individual’s background, training, qualifications or experience was
of areas where the Social Welfare Appeals Office was criticised -
subject to trenchant criticism. Someone who has worked on a factory assembly line for 25 years may be
medically fit to work as a receptionist but will not have the qualifications or experience to be able to do so,
Delays:
however this is not taken into account when deciding “fitness to work”. A number of organisations expressed
The length of time it takes to receive an appeal date was mentioned as an impediment to an efficient service.
their frustration with this, and the perceived unwillingness of the Appeals Officers to take it on as an issue.
Concerns were raised as to the numbers of people who did not take an appeal due to the lengthy nature of
the process and the delay in receiving a date for the hearing of the appeal. This is particularly relevant where
Role of Appeals Officers:
a payment is being sought in an urgent situation. The client may find that the emergency has passed before
While all organisations felt that the Appeals Officers acted in a fair and independent manner, one organisation
an appeal date has been set.
mentioned that the Appeals Officers tended towards a very literal interpretation of the regulations and
legislation. It was felt that in order for the Appeals Officers to act truly independently, they should take a
Independence:
more quasi-judicial role in interpreting the regulations.
In direct contrast to the literature review, the independence of the Social Welfare Appeals Office did not
feature strongly as an issue which needed to be addressed within the current appeals system. However, at
Impact of Representative/Advocate:
least one organisation did feel that there were certain procedural issues, particularly in relation to medical
All organisations were of the opinion that having a representative/advocate present at the hearing, affected
evidence which need to be addressed urgently.92 The issue of Medical Assessors was used to highlight
the outcome. As well as the advantage in terms of preparing the case, knowledge and familiarity with the
the links between the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Social Welfare Appeals Office –
system and procedural issues, it was felt that the Appeals Officer was more likely to err on the side of
Medical Assessors are paid by the Department of Social and Family Affairs to provide medical assessments
caution (or avoid a potential judicial review!) when there was a representative/advocate present.
and opinions. It was felt that, in practise, Medical Assessors reports were not viewed as evidence to be
considered and decided upon rather as conclusive evidence to be followed.
Role of Assessors:
The role of Assessors was questioned by one organisation. As described earlier, Assessors are there to
The fact that the Appeals Office was staffed through the Department of Social and Family Affairs was also
provide expertise and advice on local employment conditions to the Appeals Officer. They do not decide
highlighted as an illustration as to the lack of independence of the system. It was suggested that a certain
the outcome of an appeal. Quite often appellants are asked their permission to proceed with a relevant
lack of independence was inherent within the structure of the Appeals Office as it currently exists.
hearing in the absence of an Assessor (due to an Assessors absence), which can be confusing and unsettling
for an appellant. Whether or not Assessors play a meaningful role in the Appeals Process was thought to
Other organisations, when prompted, felt that in practical terms the Social Welfare Appeals Office operated
be debatable, particularly as there does not appear to be any consistency as to whether/when Assessors
independently of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. One organisation pointed to the high success
attend hearing.
91 A point echoed in the Quantitative and Qualitative data gathered. See further, Sections 3 and 4.
92 A point echoed in the qualitative interviews.
74
75
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
Lack of decisions of the High & Supreme Court:
Section 6 – Key Issues & Recommendations
The lack of decisions of the High and Supreme Court in the area of social welfare law is immediately evident
when compared with the areas of equality or employment law. It was held (by one organisation) that this
“It should never be forgotten that tribunals exist for users, and not the other way round. No
absence of judicial interpretation has led to stagnation in the area. While this may be due to the low numbers
matter how good tribunals may be, they do not fulfil their function unless they are accessible by
of private practitioners in the area, it is something which could be taken on board by the community and
the people who want to use them, and unless the users receive the help they need to prepare and
voluntary organisations. A more pro-active approach towards test-cases could lead to more developments
present their cases.” 93
in the area.
The users of the social welfare appeals system are particularly vulnerable – there can be many barriers to
Decisions not being published:
participation in the appeals process: literacy issues and language barriers, financial difficulties, social issues,
The lack of published decisions was regarded as posing difficulties for anyone bringing an appeal, whether
comprehension difficulties and intimidation by the system itself. Many of those who take an appeal are
they had a representative/advocate or not. The lack of precedents meant that applicants can rarely use
unaware of the existence of independent information and advice services, most who do engage with the
previous decisions to strengthen their arguments, simply because they have no way of being aware of them.
appeals system do so in the absence of independent information and advice, and the majority do not have
It was pointed out that the Employment Appeals Tribunal and other Tribunals publish written decisions, and
a representative during the appeal hearing.94 An equitable appeals system seeks to provide a swift, fair and
that the Appeals Office by not doing so inhibits the development of a more fair and equitable system.
accessible appeals mechanism that through its working ensures that all social welfare applicants dissatisfied
with the initial decision are in a position to have an appeal dealt with effectively and fairly.
A further curb on the development of the appeals system, is the current practise of not giving reasons for
decisions where the appeal is successful (although this can be obtained through the Freedom of Information
This section presents the key issues and themes which arose during the research and consultation process
legislation). It leads to a lacuna of knowledge, where the reasons for allowing an appeal are the subject of
involved in preparing this Report and makes recommendations for improvement of the social welfare
conjecture and guesswork.
appeals system. The section is structured according to the following headings:
Summary
The following issues were highlighted by the Community and Voluntary organisations involved
in the research. They are not necessarily findings of the research project:
The social welfare appeals system was not regarded as particularly “client-friendly” for anyone taking an
appeal individually and can be quite intimidating. However, the individual Appeals Officers do go out of
their way to make clients at ease and comfortable during an oral hearing.
Representation was regarded as a significant influence on the outcome of hearings. This may be due to
greater familiarity with the appeals system as well as impacting on the decision-making of the Appeals
Officer.
Delays in appeal hearing dates were criticised.
Overall, independence was not seen as an issue in the day-to-day workings of the Appeals Office.
However, it was felt that there was an certain lack of independence inherent in the current structures.
g
Information & Communication,
g
Structure & Independence of the Social Welfare Appeals Office,
g
Representation,
g
Disability Payments,
g
Accessibility.
The recommendations are then listed, where appropriate the relevant agencies are identified. Five key/high
priority recommendations are highlighted.
Information & Communication:
Throughout the research it became clear that information and communication regarding the social welfare
The current system of medical assessors and reporting was regarded as being cursory, unfair and outof-touch.
appeals system is not always effective or adequate. Effective information and communication is at the very
The current practice of not publishing reasons for decisions, and not giving reasons for successful
appeals was seen as placing applicants at a disadvantage and stifling any development in the area.
futile exercise.
core of any appeals system. Without it, a dedicated appeals system is an expensive, time-consuming and
93 Leggatt, A., Tribunals for Users – One System, One Service, Report of the Review of Tribunals, 2001 at p. 6 (para. 6).
94 See p. 555 earlier.
76
77
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
At the moment, unsuccessful applicants are informed in writing of their right to appeal when told of the
initial (unsuccessful) decision. On lodging an appeal, they are forwarded information leaflets which outline
the appeals system, how to proceed with their appeal and which informs them that if they “wish to obtain
Recommendation 1:
Further research, exploring the feasibility of implementing mechanisms of verbally informing
applicants of the Departmental decision should be undertaken.
any information or documents relied on by the Deciding Officer in reaching the decision you should contact
the Section of the Social Welfare Services which dealt with your claim”
95
However, as earlier research
showed, this is not always an effective communication tool, and many appellants were unaware of how to
proceed with an appeal or their right to access their “file” and any other relevant information.96
There needs to be an effective communication system, which ensures that all applicants are aware of the
initial decision, that they understand the decision and the rationale behind it, and know what to do if they
are dissatisfied with that decision. To this end, information needs to be available and communicated in a
number of different media and formats. The following issues are relevant to the process prior to reaching
an appeal. Providing information and advice at this stage of the appeals process will not only ensure that
Effective Communication:
In the interim, there are a number of more immediate steps which could be undertaken to ensure more
effective communication systems are implemented.
Recommendation 2:
A “Plain English Officer” should be employed within the Social Welfare Appeals Office. He/
She would be responsible for ensuring all publications were written in a readily accessible
and easy-to-read format.
appellants are in a position to prepare an appeal, it will also ensure that those who do not have valid grounds
for appeal become aware of this before reaching an oral hearing. Recommendations regarding the process
subsequent to lodging an appeal are outlined later in this section.
Verbal Communication of Decision?
In an ideal world, the initial decision, the reason for that decision and the appeals process should ideally be
communicated in writing and verbally to all applicants. However, it may not be realistic to always do so.
Recommendation 3 (Key Recommendation):
The Social Welfare Appeals Office, in consultation with relevant stakeholders (Department
of Social and Family Affairs, Appellants and Independent Information and Advice services)
should design and publish a straightforward Step-by-Step Guide to taking a social welfare
appeal. This should be forwarded to all unsuccessful applicants when they are informed of
the initial decision. 97
While it may seem straightforward to contact unsuccessful applicants by phone, there may often be occasions
where it would not be possible or practicable to do so (incorrect contact details may have been given, or
Recommendation 4:
a person may no longer be contactable at that number). If departmental officials were obliged to make
Ideally, as part of this process a video/DVD showing a “mock appeal” should be produced,
providing a mechanism of conveying the structure and format of appeals hearings. Such
a production would be a useful communication tool, as it does not rely on literacy levels
and could help demystify the appeals process. While it may be prohibitively expensive to
distribute this to all unsuccessful applicants, they could be informed that it is available
through DSFA, SWAO, Libraries, Citizens Information Centres and other Information and
Advocacy services.
“reasonable attempt” to contact an unsuccessful applicant by phone, it would be necessary to define what
is considered reasonable attempt. For example, how many attempts at phone contact would be considered
reasonable? Where a person cannot be contacted by phone, should a Departmental Official then call to
them in person? If so, should this call be to their workplace or home? If this were to be the case, it is highly
likely that such calls would be regarded as inappropriate or intimidatory or a breach of confidentiality.
On initial glance, it would appear that verbal communication of the initial departmental decision may be
impracticable. Nevertheless, it is clear from the research that existing communications are not always
effective and that other options should be explored. One possibility would be that applicants could be
asked when making the initial application as to whether they wished to be verbally informed of the decision,
and how they wished to be contacted to communicate that decision. Alternative mechanisms are possible,
and it is important that mechanisms other than the existing one are explored.
95 SW 56 Social Welfare Appeals Office – An Introductory Guide. 96 See, in general, Section 4. On one occasion (Section 4 – at p. 78) an
appellant did contact the Department, but does not appear to have been made aware of her right to access her file.
78
97 There is an information leaflet available outlining the appeals system (SW56) published by the DSFA. What is envisaged is a more
comprehensive step-by-step guide.
79
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
Recommendation 5:
All publications should be made available in other languages as required. Similarly,
interpreters and translators should be employed, when necessary, to ensure language is
not a barrier to progressing an appeal. 98 All publications should continue to be available
through the internet. 99 However, there should be a degree of caution when using the
internet as a communication tool. While the IT and Internet can play a pivotal role in effective
communication, it must be remembered that literacy difficulties, language barriers and a lack
of basic computer skills can pose access difficulties for many. Access to IT equipment also
remains a barrier for many.
which outlines the fact that an appellant should contact the Department of Social Welfare if they wish to
obtain any information or documents relied on in reaching the initial decision. However, our research has
shown that, despite this, many appellants are not aware of their entitlement to view their file, or the potential
advantage of obtaining a copy of the file.
Recommendation 7 (Key Recommendation):
On being informed of their right to appeal, unsuccessful applicants should be clearly informed
of their right to access their file and any relevant information. The importance of having this
information for an appeal should be explained. Subsequently, on lodging an appeal, an
appellant should be reminded of her/his right to access their file and other information, and
provided with a “tick-form” whereby they can request such information.
Information & Advice:
The need for independent information and advice arose consistently during the research. While it is
recognised that the current appeals system is designed to be informal and accessible, equally it must be
It would be unwieldy and time-consuming to automatically forward a file to every unsuccessful applicant.
recognised that many appellants will not be in a position to participate meaningfully in the social welfare
It may be more practicable to consider a mechanism whereby, on lodging an appeal, the appellant is again
appeals system without additional support and assistance.
informed of his/her right to access this information and a simple mechanism be in place whereby she/he
can opt to obtain a copy of such information.
In order to ensure the independence of the appeals structure, both the Department of Social and Family
Affairs and the Social Welfare Appeals Office themselves should only give general and procedural advice.
Publication of Records & Cases:
However, it is important that unsuccessful applicants should be made aware of the existence of independent
A key issue arising throughout this research is the lack of transparency caused by the non-publication of
information and advice sources. Some of the contributors to the research felt that all unsuccessful applicants
records and outcomes of appeals. Without such publication there is little or no scope to develop precedent
should be automatically referred to an independent source of information and advice. Such an automatic
and ensure an understanding of the rationale for particular decisions. Publication of such records would
referral would not distinguish between those who wanted (or needed) such information and advice, and
also ensure a level of consistency between different Appeals Officers and be of benefit to both the Appeals
might place an intolerable demand on the resources of independent information and advice agencies.
Officers making the decisions as well as those who the decision affects. However, it is important to respect
the anonymity of the appellants and to ensure that records would be published in a format that did not
Recommendation 6 (Key Recommendation):
Unsuccessful applicants should be provided with the (national) Citizens Information LoCall number and contact details of Citizens Information Centres and other Information and
Advice Services locally. Unsuccessful applicants can then choose to contact the appropriate
organisation to obtain information and advice. In this context, consideration also needs to be
given to ensuring that such organisations are adequately funded to provide these services.
identify the individuals concerned.
While the recent format of the Social Welfare Appeals Office Annual Report 100 is a welcome development,
it is not adequate in providing the level of detail and information required to ensure not only that the decision
making process is transparent, consistent and fair but that it is seen to be transparent, consistent and fair.
In this context, it is equally important to publish the decisions (and rationale for those decisions) where the
Access to Departmental Information/File:
appeal is allowed, partially allowed or disallowed.
Subsequent to lodging an appeal, applicants need to be given all the information required to ensure that
they can effectively prepare for an appeal. Current practice entails forwarding information, including a leaflet
98 In all Social Welfare Local Offices with a high immigrant population there is a translation/interpretation service available for those whose
first language is not English. All information is available in Braille on request. 99 All publications are currently available on the DSFA website.
In this context it is important that the website of the Social Welfare Appeals Office is distinct and separate from the Department of Social and
Family Affairs (see further below). A separate SWAO website is currently being developed.
80
100 The Annual Report of the Social Welfare Appeals Office now contains a section “Case Studies” providing an outline of some of the cases
determined during the year.
81
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
Recommendation 8 (Key Recommendation):
The Social Welfare Appeals Office should publish records of all appeals, the outcome of
those appeals and the rationale for those decisions. These records should be published in a
format protecting the anonymity of the parties involved, and readily available as a matter of
public record.
Appeals Officers are employees within the Department of Social and Family Affairs, and as such, are hearing
appeals (and making decisions) on the earlier decisions of their colleagues. While there is an onus on the
Appeals Officers to make their decisions independently, which in practice they do, there is a perception that
an appeals system within this structure cannot be truly independent of the Department.102
At a more mundane level, issues such as the fact that the Social Welfare Appeals Office website is contained
within the departmental website further strengthen perceptions of a lack of independence (although
Code of Practice/Charter:
a separate SWAO website is currently being developed). Similarly, the perception on the part of some
Many international appeals systems publish a Code of Practice/Charter outlining the rights and responsibilities
appellants that the evidence of Medical Assessors is accepted as authoritative contributes strongly to their
of the appellant and appeals office. A code of practice/charter covering areas such as the principles
belief that the SWAO is not truly independent of the Department .
underpinning the appeals system, service standards and timeframes would be a positive move forward
towards increasing the transparency of the Social Welfare Appeals Office.
While it is essential that the Social Welfare Appeals Office is independent of the Department, it is equally
important that it be seen to be independent. If this is ever to be truly the case an independent appeal
Interpersonal skills of personnel within the social welfare appeals process (from the initial decision onwards)
structure separate of the Department of Social and Family Affairs will need to be established.
were criticised by a number of those involved in the research. Appellants tend to be in a vulnerable and
difficult position, and it was felt that staff did not always understand this and/or treat them with respect
When establishing such a structure international best-practice should be learnt from. A structure whereby
and dignity. A published Code of Practice/Charter would ensure that appellants not only have a right to
appeals are heard by members drawn from panel of independent experts, chosen for their expertise would
be treated with dignity and respect, but are aware of such a right and their entitlement to have that right
address many of the concerns raised during the research. It is beyond the scope of this research to propose
vindicated when appropriate.
a specific alternative structure, nevertheless one is required if the appeals system is to be independent and
enjoy the confidence of social welfare applicants.
Recommendation 9:
The Department of Social & Family Affairs and the Social Welfare Appeals Office should
individually publish Codes of Practice/Charters, incorporating the right to be treated with
dignity and respect. This would include a complaints procedure providing a mechanism to
address complaints from members of the public.
Structure & Independence of SWAO
Recommendation 10:
Further research should be completed, identifying the most appropriate alternative appeals
structure to protect and enhance the independence and perception of independence of the
appeals process.
In the interim, in order to strengthen the perception of independence all publications
(including the Social Welfare Appeals Office website) should be produced independently of
the Department.
The Social Welfare Appeals Office strives to provide a fair and accessible appeals system within existing
structures; however, areas of concern have been identified earlier in the research 101 particularly regarding
the link between staff in the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Social Welfare Appeals Office.
While some may regard the Social Welfare Appeals Office as inextricably linked to the Department of Social
and Family Affairs and appellants may appear to regard the Department and Appeals Office personnel
as interchangeable, practitioners generally regard the Social Welfare Appeals Office as providing an
independent service. More specifically, Appeals Officers themselves were considered to be working and
acting independently of the Department. Issues regarding independence were seen to be inherent within
Representation
For most appellants the prospect of an oral hearing may be intimidating and daunting – and for those with
literacy difficulties, language barriers and/or communication issues the prospect can be overwhelming. The
efforts of Appeals Officers to ensure oral hearings are conducted in as relaxed and informal a manner as
possible was widely recognised and praised – however, some appellants will never be comfortable within
such surroundings.
the structures of the Social Welfare Appeals Office rather than in its practice.
101 Section 2, at p. 7-10.
82
102 This issue is explored in more detail later in this section.
83
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
Regardless of how straightforward an appeals process is, how effective the information and communications
Disability Payments
are, how informal the hearing and how understanding the Appeals Officer, certain appellants will need
One of the issues which arose consistently across the research (and about which the most passionate
assistance in preparing an appeal and a representative/advocate to present and argue their appeal effectively.
opinions were expressed) was the role of Medical Assessors.
This research has shown that anecdotally, the presence of a representative/advocate can significantly
increase the chance of a positive outcome for the appellant.103 Indeed, the very act of seeking advice and
Specifically issues of concern were raised regarding:
information can benefit the appeals process – those who bring an appeal will have a better understanding
of the process and those with unjustifiable appeals may not proceed to an oral hearing. The majority of
g
Role/Independence of Medical Assessors,
those surveyed who did not seek independent information and advice were unaware of the existence of
g
Assessment Mechanism/”Fitness to Work”.
such services.104 An automatic referral to an independent information and advice service (recommended
earlier) will ensure all appellants have a certain level of access to advice and support services; however
Role/Independence of Medical Assessors:
certain appellants will need more than initial information and advice and will need representation. While
The medical assessment was widely criticised as brief, cursory in nature without allowing for a full medical
an automatic right to representation may be expensive and unnecessary, guidelines and criteria need to be
history to be taken into account. Medical Assessors were seen to be employees of the Department of Social
established to ensure that all appellants who require representation have access to it. On establishing such a
and Family Affairs and to regard themselves as such. Furthermore, it was asserted that Medical Assessors
requirement, appellants could then access representation through the appropriate independent information
are General Practitioners who may not have specialised knowledge or expertise or where they are specialists
and advice agency. When that agency cannot provide representation (through lack of resources), a panel
they are not employed in that capacity. Particularly complex medical issues were being assessed by Medical
system could operate ensuring the appellants has access to appropriate representation at all times.
Assessors possibly without the benefit of specialist expertise and some interviewees felt their qualifications
and employment history was not taken into account.
It is important to recognise that many organisations providing such services are already overstretched and
cannot cope with existing demands on their services. If such organisations are to provide a meaningful
Alternative structures, protecting the independence of Medical Assessors need to be established.
support to appellants they need to be properly financed and resourced with a separate ring-fenced funding
line for social welfare appeals work. This particular funding should be administered and delivered by the
Recommendation 12:
Department of Social and Family Affairs.
An independent panel of doctors and specialists should be appointed to provide medical
assessments. Members of this panel could then be chosen appropriate to particular cases.
At a more mundane level, appellants are not currently entitled to have a representative present during
an oral hearing (although in practice Appeals Officers always all a representative/advocate to attend).
Current legislation and regulations should be amended to ensure that appellants are entitled to have a
This perceived lack of independence is of particular concern when coupled with the perception on the part
representative/advocate attend oral hearings.
of some appellants that Appeals Officers were regarding reports from Medical Assessors as binding rather
than evidential, particularly where conflicting evidence/reports were presented by the appellant (this was a
Recommendation 11 (Key Recommendation):
concern raised both by appellants and organisations providing representative/advocacy services). It was felt
All appellants should be entitled to independent advice and information. Guidelines/Criteria
should be developed to ensure that all appellants have access to representation when
necessary.
that equal weight was not given to evidence and reports presented by the appellant.
To ensure a quality service Information and Advice providers need to be properly resourced
and financed.
Appellants should be entitled to have a representative/advocate attend oral hearings.
103 The survey had a very small sample size with representation. However, research does demonstrate the impact of representation within the
appeals system in Northern Ireland (See Section 1, p. 17 and Section 3, p. 47). 104 See Section 3, p. 53.
84
85
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
Case-law 105 has established that Appeals Officers must act independently of ministerial and other
Assessment Mechanism/”Fitness to Work”:
influences. Indeed, Kiely v. Minister for Social Welfare (the Department submitted a medical report whereas
As highlighted in the research, medical assessments do not always take into account the broader experience
the appellant was obliged to provide witnesses to give evidence on oath) established that both sides in an
of the appellant. Decisions are made regarding “fitness to work” solely on the basis of isolated (and often
appeal had a right to be equally heard:
challenged) medical decisions, without considering wider issues such as the appellants employment history
and background.110
“Natural justice is not observed if the scales of justice are tilted against one
side all through the proceedings. Audi alteram partem means that both sides
The concept of “fitness to work” needs to be broader than a mere medical assessment. While an individual
must be fairly heard. .... The dispensation of justice, in order to achieve
may be medically fit to change career and obtain alternative employment, it may be completely unrealistic
its ends, must be even-handed in form as well as content..” 106
and unachievable for them to do so.
It also established that the role of an Assessor is not to take an active role in the appeals process, but:
“... to act as a medical dictionary (and not as a medical report) available for consultation by
Recommendation 14:
As currently applied, the concept of “Fitness to Work” needs to be broadened beyond a medical
model to encompass the background, experience and qualifications of the appellant.
the appeals officer.” 107
However, it does appear that Assessors provide medical reports for appeals hearings. The procedure
An additional option would be to extend the availability of current training options and the Back-to-Work
outlined by the Department of Social and Family Affairs is that “in the event of an appeal the person will be
and Back-to-Education schemes. Were such schemes broadened, some of those currently seeking disability
called for a second medical examination and will be examined by a different Medical Assessor. The Medical
payments may be in a position to re-train for alternative employment.
Assessor’s report is sent to the Social Welfare Appeals Office who will consider the medical evidence before
making a decision on the appeal”.108
Accessibility:
Lodging of Appeals:
Were it the case that the evidence of Medical Assessors was being accepted without quibble and conflicting
While the importance of having a truly accessible appeals system is widely recognised, many of those involved
reports dismissed, there would be then clearly a matter of concern. To explore this in greater detail was
with the appeals system did not regard it as accessible. The requirement of submitting an appeal in writing
beyond the scope of this particular piece of research; however it is of considerable concern and should be
ensures that the apparently simple action of lodging an appeal can be beyond many potential appellants
investigated further.
and was highlighted during the research as a potentially significant barrier to an accessible appeals system.
While recognising that this places resource and other demands on the Social Welfare Appeals Office, it is
Recommendation 13:
not impracticable to design a more accessible system allowing appellants to lodge appeals in person or over
Further research needs to be completed exploring the extent and scope of the role of Medical
Assessors.109
the phone as well as in writing. Other appeals systems (such as the Australian system) do provide alternative
mechanisms for lodging an appeal and may provide models to be drawn from.
Recommendation 15:
Appellants should be entitled to lodge appeals in writing, electronically, in person or by
telephone. Subsequent to lodging an appeal electronically or by telephone, a formal
procedure verifying the appeal could be undertaken.
105 McLoughlin v. Minister for Social Welfare [1958] I.R. 1, More specifically: Kiely v. Minister of Social Welfare (No. 2) [1977] I.R. 267 where
the Supreme Court re-asserted that Appeals Officers were obligated to act impartially when deciding appeals. 106 Ibid Per Henchy J., at p.
281-2. 107 Ibid per Henchy J., at p. 283. 108 www.welfare.ie/foi/medicalreview.html 109 The DSFA has appointed consultants to assist with
the conduct of a fundamental review of medical certification, reporting, review and assessment for schemes related to illness, disability and
caring. The project will include an examination of the role of the medical review and assessment process, in the context of the Social Welfare
Appeals System. For further detail see Section 4.
86
110 For further details, see Section 4.
87
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
Delays:
An automatic right to an oral hearing could lead to increased delays as well as leading to an unrealistic
Many appellants experience significant delays while waiting for their appeal which can lead to frustration
expectation on the part of particular appellants (those bringing “futile appeals”). Publication of decisions
and hardship. Recognising that there is a balance to be found between adequate time required to ensure
(and rationale for decisions) should lead to a greater awareness of cases within the appeals office and
a proper and fair appeal and the pressures on the appellant, the appeals process should be adequately
diminish the level of “futile appeals” and subsequent requests for oral hearings.
resourced to ensure there is no undue hardship to appellants.
Assessors (Employment Cases):
Geographical Locations:
The role played by Assessors in employment cases was questioned during the research. It was felt that
One of the issues which arose during the research was the requirement on appellants to travel for oral
the impact and role of assessors was inconsistent and confusing to appellants – some assessors attend
hearings and it was suggested that oral hearing should be held in DSFA Local Offices. However, to hold oral
regularly, others rarely.
hearings in every local office would lead to a dissipation of resources and could contribute to delays in the
appeals process. Moreover, if hearings were heard in Departmental premises any existing perception of a
An Appellant has the right to have the hearing adjourned if either or both of the assessors are not present.
lack of independence would be compounded.
When Assessors do not attend, the Appeals Officer may ask the appellant if they are happy to continue in
the absence of an assessor(s). Naturally this can lead to confusion and a degree of apprehension on the part
Nevertheless, it needs to be recognised that in a very small number of cases travel to an oral hearing
of the appellant who may not be clear of the role of the assessor or what is being asked of them.
can cause unnecessary hardship. The Australian appeals system had an innovative solution to this issue,
whereby video-conferencing was provided where travel to an appeal hearing wasn’t practical. Given the
Recommendation 17:
much smaller size of Ireland, such a facility would probably be under-utilised. A more practicable alternative
The role of (Employment) Assessors should be reviewed. Earlier recommendations regarding
the structure of the Appeals Office may supersede this issue, however in the interim there is
a need for clarification and consistency.
may be to encourage Appeals Officers to attend oral hearings in alternative locations such as hospitals/
individual’s homes where it is not possible for the appellant to travel to a SWAO venue. Such a solution,
while not ideal, would be a practical solution in the small number of cases when required. Currently a (small)
number of domiciliary appeal hearings take place in the homes of incapacitated appellants. If this practice
were widened, it could meet the needs of those who cannot currently readily travel to attend hearings.
Recommendation 16:
Appeals Officers should attend oral hearings in alternative locations such as hospitals/
individual’s homes where it is not possible for the appellant to travel to a SWAO venue.
However, given the range of locations in which oral hearings are heard, it is envisaged that
such cases would be a rarity.
Summary of Recommendations:
The following table summarises the recommendations contained in this section and identifies agencies
responsible for their implementation. Five key recommendations have been identified and highlighted in
the Table.
Oral Hearings:
During the research, an automatic right to an oral hearing was proposed. In practice, the Appeals Office grants
most requests for oral hearings 111 (however as this is not widely published, there may be a perception that
appellants may be denied their “right to a fair hearing”).
111 Deloitte & Touche, op. cit, n. 33, at p. 49.
88
89
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation
Northside Community Law Centre – Social Welfare Appeals Research
SWAO
THE CONTENTS OF THIS SURVEY ARE STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL.
Further research, exploring the feasibility of implementing mechanisms of verbally informing
applicants of the Departmental decision should be undertaken.
2
A “Plain English Officer” should be employed within the Social Welfare Appeals Office.
3
The Social Welfare Appeals Office, in consultation with relevant stakeholders (Department of Social
and Family Affairs, Appellants and Independent Information and Advice services) should design
and publish a straightforward Step-by-Step Guide to taking a social welfare appeal. This should be
forwarded to all unsuccessful applicants when they are informed of the initial decision.
SWAO,
DSFA, Information
& Advice Agencies,
Appellants
4
A video/DVD showing a “mock appeal” should be produced, providing a mechanism of conveying
the structure and format of appeals hearings.
SWAO,
DSFA, Information
& Advice Agencies,
Appellants
5
All publications should be made available in other languages as required. Similarly, interpreters
and translators should be employed, when necessary, to ensure language is not a barrier to
progressing an appeal.
6
Unsuccessful applicants should be provided with the (national) Citizens Information Lo-Call number
and contact details of Citizens Information Centres and other Information and Advice Services
locally. Unsuccessful applicants can then choose to contact the appropriate organisation to obtain
information and advice. In this context, consideration also needs to be given to ensuring that such
organisations are adequately funded to provide these services.
DSFA.
On being informed of their right to appeal, unsuccessful applicants should be clearly informed
of their right to access their file and any relevant information. The importance of having this
information for an appeal should be explained. Subsequently, on lodging an appeal, an appellant
should be reminded of her/his right to access their file and other information, and provided with
a “tick-form” whereby they can request such information.
DSFA, SWAO.
8
9
The Social Welfare Appeals Office should publish records of all appeals, the outcome of those
appeals and the rationale for those decisions. These records should be published in a format
protecting the anonymity of the parties involved, and readily available as a matter of public record.
The Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Social Welfare Appeals Office should individually
publish Codes of Practice/Charters, incorporating the right to be treated with dignity & respect.
SWAO.
DSFA, SWAO.
2
about yourself: N=147; Information displayed
Illness & Disability .................................................
74
below shows number of responses.
Caring .......................................................................
12
Unemployment Allowance .................................
10
Unemployment Benefit .......................................
23
(Tick one answer only)
Female .....................................................................
81
Supplementary Welfare Allowances ...............
4
Male ..........................................................................
65
Other (Please State) .............................................
10
2. Age:
(Tick one answer only)
Under 20 .................................................................
1
20 - 34 .....................................................................
44
35 - 49 .....................................................................
53
50 - 64 .....................................................................
41
65+ ............................................................................
6
5. What was the outcome of your appeal?:
(Tick one answer only)
Allowed ....................................................................
71
Go to question 6
Partially Allowed....................................................
5
Go to question 6
Disallowed ..............................................................
59
Go to question 7
All appellants should be entitled to independent advice and information. Guidelines/Criteria
should be developed to ensure that all appellants have access to representation when necessary.
To ensure a quality service, Information and Advice providers need to be properly resourced and
financed. Appellants should be entitled to have a representative/advocate attend an oral hearing.
SWAO.
12
An independent panel of doctors and specialists should be appointed to provide medical
assessments.
SWAO.
13
Further research needs to be completed exploring the extent and scope of the role of Medical
Assessors.
Independent
Research Agency.
14
As currently applied, the concept of “Fitness to Work” needs to be broadened beyond a medical
model to encompass the background, experience and qualifications of the appellant.
DSFA, SWAO.
15
Appellants should be entitled to lodge appeals in writing, electronically, in person or by telephone.
SWAO.
16
Appeals Officers should attend oral hearings in alternative locations such as hospitals/individual’s
homes where it is not possible for the appellant to travel to a SWAO venue.
SWAO.
17
The role of (Employment) Assessors should be reviewed.
SWAO.
Table 11: Comparison of Survey & National Figures by Outcome of Appeal.
Child Related Payments ......................................
1. Sex:
Independent
Research
Agency.
11
Please answer the following questions
DSFA, SWAO.
Further research should be completed, identifying the most appropriate alternative appeals
structure to protect and enhance the independence and perception of independence of the
appeals process. In the interim, in order to strengthen the perception of independence,
all publications (including the Social Welfare Appeals Office website) should be produced
independently of the Department.
10
Appendix 1 – Survey Questionnaire
Independent
Research Agency
1
7
90
Relevant
Department/
Agency
3. Location:
(Tick one answer only)
Withdrew Appeal ..................................................
4
Go to question 8
Dublin .......................................................................
44
Rest of Leinster .....................................................
32
6. If your appeal was allowed, why do you
Munster....................................................................
41
think this was?:
Connaught ..............................................................
13
Different interpretation of rules........................
71
Ulster ........................................................................
9
New information/evidence................................
5
Preparation/presentation of case....................
59
Other (Please State) .............................................
9
About your Appeal:
(Tick all answers that apply)
Please answer the following questions about your
7. If your appeal was disallowed, why do you
appeal to the Social Welfare Appeals Office.
think this was?:
(Tick all answers that apply)
4. What type of scheme was your appeal
Poor preparation/presentation of case .........
17
related to?:
No new evidence/information .........................
15
(Tick one answer only)
Old Age Payments ................................................
3
Did not understand appeals system ...............
14
Widows, Widowers & 1-Parent Family Payments ....
9
Other (Please State) .............................................
18
91
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
17. What did they do that was most helpful?:
If so, what did you not understand?: ..............
(Tick one answer only)
.............................................................................................
Before your Appeal:
12. If Yes, why did you seek information or
Please answer the following questions about your
advice?:
experience before you lodged your appeal:
Needed more information .................................
37
Provided forms ......................................................
9
.............................................................................................
When you were informed of the initial
Did not understand appeals system ...............
32
Gave advice about taking appeal.....................
28
.............................................................................................
decision (the decision you appealed):
Other (Please State) .............................................
13
Helped complete forms & paperwork ...........
8
Representation at appeal hearing ...................
5
22. Were you given an opportunity to speak/
Other (Please State) .............................................
6
respond to issues raised during the oral
(Tick all answers that apply)
Go to question 14
8. Did you understand the initial decision?:
(Tick one answer only)
Yes .............................................................................
No..............................................................................
81
64
9. Did you understand the reason for that
decision?:
(Tick one answer only)
Yes .............................................................................
55
No..............................................................................
91
13. If No, why did you not seek information
or advice?:
(Tick all answers that apply)
Had enough information ....................................
28
Familiar with appeals system ............................
3
Did not know information/
advice was available.............................................
48
Other (Please state) .............................................
5
Go to question 19
14. Where did you get advice/information?:
10. Were you made aware of your right to
(Tick all answers that apply)
hearing?:
18. What other services would have been
Yes .............................................................................
72
helpful?:
No..............................................................................
9
.............................................................................................
.............................................................................................
23. In your experience, was the social welfare
.............................................................................................
appeals system:
.............................................................................................
Fair?:
63
During your Appeal:
No..............................................................................
63
Please answer the following questions about
Easy to use?:
your appeal:
Yes .............................................................................
58
No..............................................................................
48
Citizens Information Centre ...............................
21
at this stage?:
ICTU Centre for the Unemployed.....................
2
Irish National Organisation for the Unemployed (INOU) .....
0
19. Did you attend an oral hearing for your
appeal?:
(Tick one answer only)
Yes .............................................................................
121
Free Legal Advice Centre (FLAC) .....................
1
No..............................................................................
21
Other (Please Name) ...........................................
38
Verbally
Yes .............................................................................
29
No..............................................................................
41
(Tick one answer only)
Yes .............................................................................
77
Go to question 20
(Tick one answer only)
No..............................................................................
15. hat services did they provide?:
(Tick one answer only)
Yes .............................................................................
appeal to the Social Welfare Appeals Office
In writing
(Tick one answer only)
53
Go to question 23
(Tick one answer only)
24. What three changes would help make the
Social Welfare Appeals System fairer and
more accessible?
1 ..........................................................................................
.............................................................................................
(Tick all answers that apply)
Provided forms ......................................................
15
20. Did you have a representative/advocate
Information & Advice:
Gave advice about taking appeal.....................
35
during the oral hearing?: (Tick one answer only)
Please answer the following questions about any
Helped complete forms & paperwork ...........
11
Yes .............................................................................
8
2 ..........................................................................................
Information and Advice you may have received
Representation at appeal hearing ...................
3
No..............................................................................
71
.............................................................................................
before your Appeal:
Other (Please State) .............................................
8
If yes, please name the organisation: .............
.............................................................................................
.............................................................................................
.............................................................................................
11. Following the initial decision, did you go
16. Were they helpful in preparing for your
anywhere for information or advice?:
appeal?:
(Tick one answer only)
Yes .............................................................................
64
Go to question 12
No..............................................................................
82
Go to question 13
92
.............................................................................................
3 ..........................................................................................
.............................................................................................
(Tick one answer only)
Not at all helpful ....................................................
4
21. Was there anything that you did not
Slightly helpful........................................................
6
understand during the oral hearing?:
Reasonably helpful ...............................................
10
Quite helpful...........................................................
11
Yes .............................................................................
20
Thank you for taking the time to complete
Very helpful.............................................................
23
No..............................................................................
56
the questionnaire.
.............................................................................................
(Tick one answer only)
93
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
Appendix 2 – Advice & Advocacy Services Organisations
City Centre (Dublin) Citizens Information Service
The City Centre (Dublin) Citizens Information Service is one of a national network of Citizens Information
Centres (CIC’s) providing information, advice and advocacy services to the public. Supported and funded
primarily by Comhairle, the Centre is located on O’Connell Street in Dublin and is one of the busiest dropin Citizens Information Centres dealing with approximately 31,500 queries in 2003. The Centre operates
a drop-in and phone service for social welfare applicants providing information, advice and assistance
to anyone with a social welfare query. Clients will be given detailed information and advice, assistance in
completing any forms and, if practicable, the centre will provide an advocacy role when necessary.
In general, the Centre will provide representation/advocacy services where it feels that the applicant has
an arguable case for appeal. Initial advice and case preparation is provided by an information officer,
representation services are provided by both a volunteer solicitor within the centre and a trained information
officer. On a number of occasions the centre has found it impossible to provide representation due to a lack
of staffing-resources within the Centre.
FLAC (Free Legal Advice Centres)
FLAC is a non-governmental organisation which campaigns for full and equal access to justice for all, promotes
the use of innovative methods to meet the legal needs of those living in poverty and operates a range of
services designed to achieve those aims. It is funded through a number of different sources including the
Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, The Ireland Funds, Comhairle and the members of the Bar
Council of Ireland and the Law Society of Ireland. FLAC operates a telephone advice line on social welfare
rights and entitlements and provides a limited representation service (staff solicitor), including strategic court
work, in social welfare law. FLAC also provides a back-up/advice service to other organisations (particularly
CICs and support organisations for refugees and asylum seekers) and trains trainers in social welfare law.
When preparing its most recent Strategic Plan, FLAC made a policy decision to restrict the number of social
welfare appeals in which the organisation provided representation, to potential test cases/strategic cases
from January 2000. FLAC has recently been involved in campaigning around issues such as direct provision
for asylum-seekers and other immigration policy issues, and as a consequence has seen a marked increase
in the number of social welfare appeals taken by the organisation on behalf of immigrants and non-nationals
over the past eighteen months.
Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed (INOU)
The Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed (INOU) is a national federation of local centres and groups
The INOU provides a telephone information and advice service for social welfare applicants, publishes
leaflets and information booklets about social welfare and other entitlements and provides a training service
covering areas such as social welfare entitlements and an introduction to social welfare appeals. For clients
taking an appeal, the INOU assists in preparing their case and ensuring they have all relevant information.
There is also a representation/advocacy service either directly through the INOU or, where appropriate,
an affiliate organisation. Within the INOU, representation is provided by a staff Information Officer or the
Manager of the Welfare to Work Section.
Northside Community Law Centre:
Northside Community Law Centre (NCLC) is an independent community based law centre. It provides a
legal service to individuals and groups living in the community as well as acting as a strategic resource for
the community. NCLC is primarily funded by the Department of Social and Family Affairs.
The Law Centre provides an information service and advice to social welfare applicants. For those taking an
appeal, the Law Centre will provide advice, assist in preparing the case and represent the client at an appeal
hearing. A staff solicitor represents the client at hearings.
The Law Centre, in partnership with the local Citizens Information Centre, also holds a monthly appeals
clinic. This recent initiative is aimed at ensuring that the local community can avail of the expertise of both
the CIC and NCLC when considering whether or not to take an appeal.
Northside Centre for the Unemployed & Larkin Centre for the Unemployed
Both the Northside and Larkin Centre for the Unemployed are part of a national network of 38 Irish Congress
of Trade Unions (ICTU) Centres for the Unemployed. Set-up during the unemployment crisis of the 1980s, the
Congress Centres were established with the aim of providing accurate and readily accessible information on
social welfare rights and entitlements to unemployed people in their local communities. Both the Northside
Centre for the Unemployed and the Larkin Centre for the Unemployed are primarily funded by ICTU. ICTU
Centres offer community based services such as jobs-clubs, information and support on self-employment,
and training and education opportunities.
For those wishing to take a social welfare appeal, the centres will provide an information and advocacy
service. Centres will assist in preparing for an appeal and provide an advocacy and representation service
at oral hearings. Clients are represented by senior staff members within the centres. The Northside Centre
for the Unemployed has built strong links with the local Social Welfare Office and have been instrumental in
getting a number of cases revised without reaching an oral hearing.
concerned with combating unemployment. There are nearly 200 groups and organisations throughout the
country affiliated to the INOU.
94
95
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
Bibliography
g
g
Department of Social & Family Affairs, Promoting a Caring Society – Statement of Strategy 2003 – 2005.
g
Department of Social & Family Affairs, Annual Report, 2002.
g
Department of Social, Community & Family Affairs, Annual Report, 2001.
g
Department of Social, Community & Family Affairs, Annual Report, 2000.
g
Department of Social, Community & Family Affairs, Annual Report, 1999.
g
Department of Social, Community & Family Affairs, Annual Report, 1998.
g
Department of Social & Family Affairs, Statistical Information on Social Welfare Services, 2002.
g
Department of Social, Community & Family Affairs, Statistical Information on Social Welfare Services, 2001.
g
Department of Social, Community & Family Affairs, Statistical Information on Social Welfare Services, 2000.
g
Department of Social, Community & Family Affairs, Statistical Information on Social Welfare Services, 1999.
g
Department of Social, Community & Family Affairs, Statistical Information on Social Welfare Services, 1998.
g
Free Legal Advice Centres, Annual Report, 2002.
g
Social Welfare Appeals Office, Annual Report, 2002.
g
Social Welfare Appeals Office, Annual Report, 2001.
g
Social Welfare Appeals Office, Annual Report, 2000.
g
Social Welfare Appeals Office, Annual Report, 1999.
g
Social Welfare Appeals Office, Annual Report, 1998.
g
Deloitte & Touche, Department of Social & Family Affairs, Review of the Social Welfare Appeals
Cochrane, A. and Clarke, J. (ed.s), Comparing Welfare States – Britain in International Context,
Sage Publications/Open University Press, 1993.
g
Clark, R., Annotated Guide to Social Welfare Law, Sweet and Maxwell, 1995.
g
Cousins, M., The Irish Social Welfare System – Law and Social Policy, Round Hall Press, 1995.
g
Cousins, M., Social Welfare Law, 2nd ed, Round Hall Press, 2002.
g
Curry, J., Irish Social Services, (4th ed., Institute of Public Administration, 2003).
g
Ellis, D., Social Welfare Appeals – Assessors Manual, Community Legal Resource, 2004.
g
Ellis, D., Social Welfare Appeals Advocacy Manual, Northside Community Law Centre, 1997.
g
Hogan, G. and Morgan, D., Administrative Law in Ireland, 3rd ed., Round Hall Press, 1998.
g
O’Morain, P., Access to Justice for All – The History of the Free Legal Advice Centres 1969 – 2003,
Free Legal Advice Centres, 2003.
g
Peillon, M., Welfare in Ireland: Actors, Resources and Strategies, Praeger Publishers, 2001.
g
Adler, M., Substantive Justice and Procedural Fairness in Social Security: The UK Experience published in:
4 Robson, P. and Kjønstad, A. (ed.s), Poverty & the Law, Hart Publishing/Oxford-Portland Oregon, 2001.
g
Saraceno, C. (ed.), Social Assistance Dynamics in Europe – National and local poverty regimes,
The Policy Press, 2002.
g
Taylor, G. (ed.), Issues in Irish Public Policy, Irish Academic Press, 2002.
g
Ward, P., Financial Consequences of Marital Breakdown, Combat Poverty Agency, 1990.
g
Whyte, G., Social Inclusion and the Legal System: Public Interest Law in Ireland, Institute of
Office, Final Report, 2002
g
Work Education & Training Options for Unemployed People, (10th Ed.), 2003.
g
Public Administration, 2002.
g
Whyte, G. & Cousins, M., A Guide to Welfare Payments for Families, Free Legal Advice Centres, 1992.
g
Whyte, G. & Cousins, M., A Guide to Social Welfare Claims & Appeals, Free Legal Advice Centres, 1992.
g
Quinn, S. et al (ed.s), Contemporary Irish Social Policy, University College Dublin, 1999.
Social Security Appeals Tribunal, Annual Report 2002-03.
g
Social Security Appeals Tribunal, Service Charter.
g
Appeals Service, Annual Report & Accounts 2002 – 2003.
g
Appeals Service, Putting Service First – Information about our Service, 2003.
g
Appeals Service, Putting Service First – A Statement of the Appeals Service Aims & Standards, 2003.
g
Appeals Service, Putting Service First – What to do if things go wrong, 2003.
g
Leggat, A., Tribunals for Users - One System, One Service, Report of the Review of Tribunals, 2001.
Ireland:
g
United States of America:
Combat Poverty Agency, Submission to the Minister for Social Welfare on Reform of the
g
Social Security Agency, Your Right to Question the Decision Made on Your Claim, 2003.
g
Social Security Agency, Your Right to Representation, 2003.
g
Social Security Agency, The Appeals Process, 1999.
Supplementary Welfare Allowance Appeal System, 1994.
96
g
Combat Poverty Agency, Views on Complaints & Appeals Procedures for Health Board Services, 1997.
g
Department of Social & Family Affairs, Social Welfare Appeals Office – An Introductory Guide, SW 56.
g
Department of Social & Family Affairs, A Guide to Appeal Hearings, SW 53.
Report of the Commission on Social Welfare, Stationery Office, Dublin, 1986.
United Kingdom:
Australia:
g
Northside Community Law Centre, Fit for Work, Who Decides? Social Welfare Sickness Benefit
Claims & Appeals, 1994.
g
Reports & Other Publications:
Irish National Organisation for the Unemployed, Working for Work Exploring Welfare,
97
The Social Welfare Appeals System: Accessible & Fair?
Articles/Papers:
g
Adler, M. & Gulland, J., Tribunal Users’ Experiences, Perceptions & Expectations: A Literature Review,
Council on Tribunals, 2003.
g
Clark, R., Towards a “Just” Strike? Social Welfare Payments for Persons Affected by a Trade Dispute
in the Republic of Ireland, (1985) 48 M.L.R. 659.
g
Cousins, M., Social Welfare Adjudication in Ireland, 1847-1995: A Diachronic Analysis,
1993 – 1995 Ir. Jur. 361.
g
Genn, H. & Genn, Y., The Effectiveness of Representation at Tribunals, 1989,
Report to the Lord Chancellor.
g
Whyte, G., & Cousins, M., Reforming the Social Welfare Appeals System, 1989 I.L.T.
Case Law:
g
Kiely v. Minister for Social Welfare, [1971] I.R. 21.
g
Kiely v. Minister for Social Welfare (No. 2) [1977] I.R. 267.
g
State (Creedon) v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal [1989] I.L.R.M. 104.
g
State (Keller) v. Galway County Council [1958] I.R.142.
g
State (Williams) v. Army Pension Board [1983] I.R. 308.
Other Information Sources:
98
g
www.appeals-service.gov.uk
g
www.comhairle.ie
g
www.irlgov.ie
g
www.oasis.gov.ie
g
www.ssat.gov.au
g
www.welfare.ie
g
www.welfarerights.org.au
g
www.ast.dk
99
100