WEBVTT 00:00:25.000 --> 00:00:41.000 to provide general information and training and discussion about tribunal processes and related issues. So the speakers and chair will not be able to provide any legal advice or comment on individual cases or personal circumstances during the session. So. 00:00:41.000 --> 00:00:47.000 We kindly ask you to be supportive and respectful 00:00:47.000 --> 00:01:02.000 Avoid sharing your personal details regarding any cases or tribunal matters. I will also drop a link in the chat. It is 00:01:02.000 --> 00:01:04.000 Let me just 00:01:04.000 --> 00:01:19.000 set to everyone. I'll do that in a bit actually, just so that I don't take up time. But I will drop a little link to PLP's website where you can reach out in case you have any other inquiries. 00:01:19.000 --> 00:01:29.000 And yeah, I know we started a little bit late. So without further ado, I'm going to hand the mic to Vic, who will do the introduction. Thank you, Vic. 00:01:29.000 --> 00:01:46.000 Afternoon, everyone. Welcome to this first webinar in our advocacy and public law in the Tribunal series. I'm Vik Pogavon Stramman, and I'm the legal director at Public Law Project, and I'm your chair for the first half of this afternoon's session 00:01:46.000 --> 00:01:56.000 Before I move on to introduce our incredibly experienced panel of speakers, I've been asked to introduce these sessions by talking briefly about where tribunals fit 00:01:56.000 --> 00:02:02.000 Within the public law system of remedies and why this is important 00:02:02.000 --> 00:02:17.000 So briefly, what do we mean when we talk about public law remedies? Well, when we're talking about public law, we're talking about a set of rules which govern the relationship between individuals or private organizations, such as businesses or charities 00:02:17.000 --> 00:02:24.000 with public bodies, so government departments, local authorities, regulators, etc. 00:02:24.000 --> 00:02:35.000 And when we talk about public law remedies, we're talking about the method by which an individual or private organisation can influence change or challenge a particular decision 00:02:35.000 --> 00:02:38.000 policy or a mission by a public body. 00:02:38.000 --> 00:02:53.000 We would include within that asking the body to review its decision, complaint schemes operated by public bodies themselves, ombudsman schemes, statutory appeals and tribunals, and also judicial review. 00:02:53.000 --> 00:02:58.000 The focus of this block of training is on statutory appeals and our tribunal system 00:02:58.000 --> 00:03:16.000 But specifically on that part of the tribunal system, which deals with decisions made by public bodies, including by local authorities in respect of their obligations to children and young people in respect of their special educational needs, by the DWP in respect of welfare benefits decisions 00:03:16.000 --> 00:03:27.000 by the Home Office in respective decisions in relation to asylum and immigration. And more generally in relation to the way in which public bodies handle freedom of information and the role of the information tribunals 00:03:27.000 --> 00:03:40.000 We're not focusing, for example, on the employment tribunal, which deals with the private law relationship of an employer and an employee or any other tribunals that deal with those private relationships. 00:03:40.000 --> 00:03:51.000 Just to put this in a bit of wider context, it's worth understanding that without these specialist tribunals and statutory rights of appeal against certain decisions made by public bodies 00:03:51.000 --> 00:03:55.000 Individuals would have to bring claims for judicial review in the High Court 00:03:55.000 --> 00:04:12.000 In judicial review, generally speaking, the court is looking at the process by which the public body arrived at the decision. So, for example, did it have legal power to make that decision? Did it take account of all of the information it had before it 00:04:12.000 --> 00:04:27.000 And didn't take account of anything irrelevant. Did it follow a fair process? Did the particular policy that it was applying or using meet the general requirements in relation to the law in that area? And was the decision or the policy 00:04:27.000 --> 00:04:31.000 compatible with human rights and equalities law. 00:04:31.000 --> 00:04:38.000 The court in that context won't conduct a full merits review, so it doesn't re-decide the issue based on the evidence. 00:04:38.000 --> 00:04:45.000 That's as a result of the concept of the separation of powers and the court's deference to the executive. 00:04:45.000 --> 00:05:01.000 What would typically happen is that if the claim is successful, the court may quash the decision the public body has taken or declare the policy unlawful and order the decision to be retaken or the policy to be remade following the correct procedure and process 00:05:01.000 --> 00:05:09.000 So the court is deferring to the public body then to go away and do whatever it needs to do properly. 00:05:09.000 --> 00:05:21.000 That's important to understand as background because statutory appeals operate differently. For example, in an asylum appeal, the first tier tribunal will conduct a full merits review of whether or not someone is entitled to refugee status 00:05:21.000 --> 00:05:30.000 In an appeal about a child's education, health and care plan, the tribunal will determine what educational provision is needed to meet that child's needs. 00:05:30.000 --> 00:05:43.000 That's a significant advantage for those areas where a statutory appeal is available. You're not just arguing about whether the decision-making process was fair, rational, and lawful, but also whether it was right or wrong based on the evidence 00:05:43.000 --> 00:05:49.000 And you're also arguing it before a tribunal with specialist knowledge of the subject matter. 00:05:49.000 --> 00:06:00.000 And at the end, you end up with a binding decision which must be implemented, subject to any onwards appeal, not just an order for the public body to go away and retake the decision following the correct procedure. 00:06:00.000 --> 00:06:18.000 To give you an example of the difference, if you look at the special educational needs tribunal or the context there of where a local authority is drawn up an education, health and care plan and the parent doesn't believe that that plan is satisfactory to meet their child's needs 00:06:18.000 --> 00:06:32.000 They have a right of appeal, and the tribunal will hear the evidence, including expert evidence, and make decisions about what plan is actually needed to make that child's needs and whether it needs to be amended or not. If you look at the adult social care 00:06:32.000 --> 00:06:35.000 context, by contrast 00:06:35.000 --> 00:06:51.000 It's different. You don't have a specialist tribunal dealing with adult social care. So as an adult, if you've had an adult social care assessment and a care plan drawn up and you believe that the care plan doesn't meet your needs, then your remedy is either a complain 00:06:51.000 --> 00:07:03.000 process, which ultimately is non-binding, or to go by way of judicial review to challenge the process by which the plan was drawn up. But it's very difficult to challenge the substance of that plan. 00:07:03.000 --> 00:07:20.000 So it's this more detailed merits review of the decisions of public bodies that we're going to be focusing on in these sessions. There is a lot more that could be said about the differences between statutory appeals and tribunals and judicial review in the High Court, but it's time to hand over to our first speakers for this introduction 00:07:20.000 --> 00:07:23.000 to tribunal representation 00:07:23.000 --> 00:07:37.000 So our first speakers are Emma Baldwin and Brandi Amis Towler from the Free Representation Unit. Emma Baldwin is Principal Legal Officer for the Free Representation Unit, where she heads the Social Security Casework team. 00:07:37.000 --> 00:07:49.000 Through as a charity providing legal advice, case preparation and advocacy in employment and social security hearings. Over the years, Emma has trained and supervised thousands of law students and junior lawyers, often conducting their first cases. 00:07:49.000 --> 00:07:57.000 With the help of experienced counsel, Faru has also appeared in leading cases before the Upper Tribunal, as well as the higher and European courts 00:07:57.000 --> 00:08:04.000 Since 2013, Emma has also served as a part-time judge at the Social Entitlement Chamber of the First Tier Tribunal. 00:08:04.000 --> 00:08:13.000 Brandy is an assistant legal officer at the Free Representation Unit where she represents claimants in the first tier and upper tribunal in Social Security appeals. 00:08:13.000 --> 00:08:29.000 Prior to embarking on a legal career, she spent 12 years as a behavior therapist advocating for and supporting children with special educational needs and their families. Driven by her experience securing support for her child with complex needs and a growing interest in finding workable solutions for clients 00:08:29.000 --> 00:08:45.000 She changed career in 2020. Called to the bar in 2024, she has developed substantial advocacy experience in welfare benefits appeals. For the past 18 months, she has drawn on her legal and send experience to provide training and supervision to aspiring barristers taking on their first cases 00:08:45.000 --> 00:08:47.000 have fruit 00:08:47.000 --> 00:08:50.000 So over to you, Emma and Brandi. 00:08:50.000 --> 00:08:52.000 Thank you. 00:08:52.000 --> 00:09:01.000 So Emma and I are going to talk to you about tribunal representation and 00:09:01.000 --> 00:09:05.000 what representation looks like in the tribunal 00:09:05.000 --> 00:09:13.000 Today's session is just intended to be a brief introduction to representation in the Social Security Tribunal 00:09:13.000 --> 00:09:21.000 Our aim is to provide an overview of how disputes arise and the practical role of a representative. 00:09:21.000 --> 00:09:30.000 The tribunal is trying to reach the correct decision according to the law and the evidence and a representative's role is to assist in that process. 00:09:30.000 --> 00:09:33.000 Next 00:09:33.000 --> 00:09:46.000 We're going to cover five broad areas. Firstly, how benefit disputes arise and how cases reach the tribunal. Secondly, case management and preparation 00:09:46.000 --> 00:09:56.000 Thirdly, navigating tribunal bundles and identifying relevant evidence. Fourthly, procedure and advocacy in the tribunal itself 00:09:56.000 --> 00:10:04.000 And finally, a brief discussion about artificial intelligence and some of the ethical issues that arise from its use. 00:10:04.000 --> 00:10:07.000 Next 00:10:07.000 --> 00:10:11.000 Social Security law has five distinct features 00:10:11.000 --> 00:10:18.000 And it's a good starting point for understanding the claims that the tribunals are reviewing. 00:10:18.000 --> 00:10:20.000 Social Security law 00:10:20.000 --> 00:10:31.000 Firstly aims to provide a basic standard of living and support for people during periods when they cannot adequately support themselves 00:10:31.000 --> 00:10:33.000 The aim is for it to be protective 00:10:33.000 --> 00:10:35.000 Secondly 00:10:35.000 --> 00:10:46.000 Elizabeth Acclaim and rule-based system, a person must make a claim and entitlement depends entirely on whether they satisfy the statutory criteria. 00:10:46.000 --> 00:10:49.000 Thirdly, Social Security law involves 00:10:49.000 --> 00:10:53.000 A complex legal statutory 00:10:53.000 --> 00:10:59.000 And legal and statutory framework. It's governed by legislation that is underpinned by regulations 00:10:59.000 --> 00:11:09.000 and a substantial body of case law. Appeals may arise because the legal test has not been correctly applied to the client's claim by the decision maker. 00:11:09.000 --> 00:11:22.000 Fourthly, it's a decision-based system. Cases come before the tribunal to be reviewed after a specific decision has been made by the DWP, HMRC, or a local authority. 00:11:22.000 --> 00:11:30.000 tribunals are limited to considering only that decision. It cannot consider any other issues that arise with a benefit 00:11:30.000 --> 00:11:44.000 or issues that have risen outside of the date of decision. And finally, Social Security hearings are intended to be inquisitorial and enabling rather than adversarial 00:11:44.000 --> 00:11:52.000 In practical terms, that means that as a representative, you won't be speaking entirely on behalf of your client while they take a passive role 00:11:52.000 --> 00:12:05.000 The client will be actively engaged in the hearing with the tribunal taking the lead on asking the questions. And what the tribunal is interested in doing is ascertaining what the correct decision should be 00:12:05.000 --> 00:12:15.000 The tribunal understands the law, the client understands their personal conditions and the tribunal aims to elicit facts through their questioning. 00:12:15.000 --> 00:12:19.000 Next 00:12:19.000 --> 00:12:35.000 The tribunal sees the final stage of a process that may have started 18 months to two years prior. And by the time an appeal reaches a hearing, there may be a substantial history of applications, medical assessments, correspondence, and decision making. 00:12:35.000 --> 00:12:46.000 Understanding the background of the claim and the supporting evidence is crucial to a representative's role in assisting the tribunal in making a decision. 00:12:46.000 --> 00:12:56.000 It is reviewing the particular decision that arose from a particular set of fact on a specific date. Next 00:12:56.000 --> 00:13:00.000 So these are the 00:13:00.000 --> 00:13:14.000 This is the process by which a claim gets to the tribunal. So a client may start by making a claim, collecting medical evidence and engaging with a work capability assessment 00:13:14.000 --> 00:13:19.000 The decision maker, so for example the DWP may make a decision on a claim 00:13:19.000 --> 00:13:32.000 where a client disagrees with that decision, they will ask for a mandatory reconsideration. That's where the DWP or the deciding body will have another look at the claim and the evidence 00:13:32.000 --> 00:13:40.000 And then if the client still disagrees with that decision, they can appeal to the first tier tribunal 00:13:40.000 --> 00:13:57.000 And the final step is a hearing before the Versaire Tribunal. And it can be a long wait. There's usually about an 18 month to two year wait at the moment between making an appeal and your claim being heard by the tribunal 00:13:57.000 --> 00:14:00.000 Next slide 00:14:00.000 --> 00:14:08.000 So there are six core principles with respect to decision making on a claim 00:14:08.000 --> 00:14:13.000 And as I previously mentioned, the decision makers are usually 00:14:13.000 --> 00:14:17.000 The DWP, HMRC, or a local authority 00:14:17.000 --> 00:14:25.000 And the decisions are made on behalf of the Secretary of State 00:14:25.000 --> 00:14:36.000 The way that decisions are made is based on entitlement and that requires the decision maker to apply the correct legal test to the facts 00:14:36.000 --> 00:14:47.000 Citizens have to be formal decisions, so they will be communicated in writing to the client. Most decisions are appealable 00:14:47.000 --> 00:14:51.000 When people appeal, it's usually because there's a dispute around the facts. 00:14:51.000 --> 00:15:01.000 Sometimes there can be issues and discussions about the law. If your case involves a legal challenge, that will have to be reflected in your submissions to the tribunal 00:15:01.000 --> 00:15:08.000 With respect to the date, the tribunal's jurisdiction, as well as being limited in subject matter 00:15:08.000 --> 00:15:18.000 is limited in time, so the question the tribunal has to ask is, was this decision correct at the time, bearing in mind the date of the decision 00:15:18.000 --> 00:15:21.000 The date the decision will be effective from 00:15:21.000 --> 00:15:37.000 That might be the date of claim, which could be weeks or months earlier, or it might be the effective date of any revision or supercession, which will depend on the nature of the revision or supersession 00:15:37.000 --> 00:15:46.000 Next slide. 00:15:46.000 --> 00:15:52.000 And just to say a bit more about the relevant date 00:15:52.000 --> 00:15:56.000 This is one of the most important factors in a benefit appeal 00:15:56.000 --> 00:16:03.000 And one that can cause some issues. The tribunal is normally concerned with the claimant's circumstances at the relevant date 00:16:03.000 --> 00:16:15.000 That's because the tribunal's role is to stand in the shoes of the DWP or any other decision maker and look at the facts and evidence that would have been available to the decision maker at the date of decision 00:16:15.000 --> 00:16:30.000 What that means is that if your relevant date is the 1st of January 2025, the tribunal is limited to looking at the facts and the circumstances and the evidence that was available on the 1st of January 2025. 00:16:30.000 --> 00:16:35.000 It cannot consider anything that happened beyond that date. 00:16:35.000 --> 00:16:52.000 By the time a client has got to a hearing, as I mentioned, it can take a couple of years. So sometimes they might have experienced a deterioration in their condition. However, the tribunal can't consider that deterioration as part of the appeal, only what their condition was at the date of decision. So 00:16:52.000 --> 00:17:02.000 You will probably spend a lot of time asking your client what was happening around the date of the decision rather than what their condition is now. 00:17:02.000 --> 00:17:10.000 If you're a client has new evidence to file, it can be highly persuasive, but only if the tribunal 00:17:10.000 --> 00:17:22.000 If it helps the tribunal to understand the claimant's circumstances at that earlier time. So, for example, if a claimant has symptoms of dementia around the relevant date 00:17:22.000 --> 00:17:24.000 And then a diagnosis for dementia 00:17:24.000 --> 00:17:34.000 Comes after the relevant date, that diagnosis is evidence that sheds light on the claimant's conditions at the time of the decision. 00:17:34.000 --> 00:17:44.000 As a representative, you will ask yourself what decisions being challenged? What is the relevant period, and what does this evidence do to assist the tribunal 00:17:44.000 --> 00:17:52.000 And then this is about the role of the tribunal, an important role for the 00:17:52.000 --> 00:17:55.000 before the hearing is to spot the issues in the case 00:17:55.000 --> 00:18:01.000 discuss with the client and give evidence or give advice on how best to proceed. 00:18:01.000 --> 00:18:07.000 And take instructions from the client on that advice, because you can only act on instructions 00:18:07.000 --> 00:18:20.000 And if that's gone well, ideally, you will have narrowed the issues, so you will have focused your client's case, and the tribunal's time into considering those bits of evidence that will make a difference to the outcome. 00:18:20.000 --> 00:18:25.000 What the tribunal will be doing is having a full rehearing of the facts and the law 00:18:25.000 --> 00:18:40.000 The tribunal aims to identify the issues, assess the evidence, and make findings of fact around the client's conditions. They then apply those facts to the statutory criteria to determine whether the client meets the conditions for an award of benefit. 00:18:40.000 --> 00:18:44.000 As I previously mentioned, the tribunal leads 00:18:44.000 --> 00:18:49.000 The questioning by taking evidence from the client and testing the evidence 00:18:49.000 --> 00:19:00.000 As a representative during a hearing, your focus is on assisting the tribunal to reach the right conclusions, and your role is to assist the tribunal by identifying the key issues 00:19:00.000 --> 00:19:09.000 assisting the claimant orally to gather and present the relevant evidence and ensuring that the claimant can participate effectively. 00:19:09.000 --> 00:19:12.000 And just drawing your attention to 00:19:12.000 --> 00:19:21.000 The advocacy point, the good tribunal advocacy will be advocacy that narrows and clarifies the dispute. 00:19:21.000 --> 00:19:25.000 Next slide, please. 00:19:25.000 --> 00:19:30.000 So, the next session is on case management in the tribunal 00:19:30.000 --> 00:19:34.000 Next slide 00:19:34.000 --> 00:19:39.000 Social Security bundles follow a particular structure 00:19:39.000 --> 00:19:54.000 So when you get your bundle, you'll need to look through it and make sure it has all the relevant documents in it. It will start with some brief facts about the case that could be your client's date of birth or the date of claim, the date of decision 00:19:54.000 --> 00:20:00.000 And then you will see the Secretary of State or HMRC submissions on the case 00:20:00.000 --> 00:20:03.000 And those are the submissions to the tribunal 00:20:03.000 --> 00:20:07.000 Next, you will find the index 00:20:07.000 --> 00:20:19.000 And this index is how you can check that all the evidence is in the bundle that you've received all the right pages, that the documents that are listed near index are in the bundle. 00:20:19.000 --> 00:20:28.000 And after the End Act, you will find the claimant's application for appeal, followed by the claim form and any supporting evidence. 00:20:28.000 --> 00:20:38.000 You should always know what the documents are located, what evidence has been attained. What evidence is still outstanding and what actions have been taken with respect to the case. 00:20:38.000 --> 00:20:42.000 Next slide, please. 00:20:42.000 --> 00:20:47.000 Evidence is key to these cases 00:20:47.000 --> 00:20:51.000 Identifying the relevant evidence involves 00:20:51.000 --> 00:20:56.000 Identifying which evidence relates to the legal test 00:20:56.000 --> 00:21:05.000 Whether it is within the relevant period and does it help resolve a disputed issue? Often 00:21:05.000 --> 00:21:13.000 When you get the bundle, cases will have involved documents that will have been filed between the time 00:21:13.000 --> 00:21:21.000 Where the appeal was raised, and the… and you received the bundle. So, you may have documents in the bundle that are outside 00:21:21.000 --> 00:21:28.000 the relevant period, and so part of your job will be going through the bundle and identifying what is within that period 00:21:28.000 --> 00:21:40.000 Effective advocacy will focus the tribunal's attention on evidence that contextualises and crystallizes the client's case. 00:21:40.000 --> 00:21:44.000 Next slide. 00:21:44.000 --> 00:21:47.000 Her advocacy and the tribunal 00:21:47.000 --> 00:21:51.000 Next slide 00:21:51.000 --> 00:21:54.000 Written submissions are there to assist the tribunal 00:21:54.000 --> 00:22:04.000 And as it says, you want to keep these brief. The tribunal already has a lot of evidence in front of them, so it is not 00:22:04.000 --> 00:22:09.000 about repeating every piece of evidence or 00:22:09.000 --> 00:22:13.000 Expanding on your client's case in a way that 00:22:13.000 --> 00:22:18.000 has already been set out in the bundle 00:22:18.000 --> 00:22:23.000 When you're drafting good written submissions, they will identify the issues 00:22:23.000 --> 00:22:30.000 narrow the issues if possible and clearly state what outcome your client is seeking 00:22:30.000 --> 00:22:35.000 Additionally, if you're conceding issues, you need to make that clear 00:22:35.000 --> 00:22:37.000 So 00:22:37.000 --> 00:22:39.000 That goes along with narrowing the issues 00:22:39.000 --> 00:22:48.000 And dealing with and foreshadowing any problems that may be arising in your client's case. For example. 00:22:48.000 --> 00:22:52.000 If your client's evidence has changed, you need to explain why 00:22:52.000 --> 00:23:02.000 It's not unusual for a client to provide slightly different evidence in the claim form as well as the 00:23:02.000 --> 00:23:07.000 healthcare assessment or different from the claim form and the appeal 00:23:07.000 --> 00:23:14.000 there might be a good reason. There might have been a deterioration, but you just need to say why that evidence is different. 00:23:14.000 --> 00:23:26.000 If you can see why the DWCP decided against you, you should say, and if there's medical treatment that has been provided but wasn't consistent with the disability being described 00:23:26.000 --> 00:23:30.000 Then you can also set that out. 00:23:30.000 --> 00:23:40.000 Brevity is usually a virtue and it's important to make the submissions concise, simple and clear for the tribunal so they can see what you want. 00:23:40.000 --> 00:23:43.000 Next slide 00:23:43.000 --> 00:23:47.000 While tribunal advocacy is led by the panel 00:23:47.000 --> 00:23:55.000 That doesn't mean the representative is passive. Your role is to listen and take a note 00:23:55.000 --> 00:24:03.000 Identify gaps in evidence, ask your client questions to reduce evidence and clarify any misunderstandings. 00:24:03.000 --> 00:24:07.000 And ensure that important points are not overlooked 00:24:07.000 --> 00:24:16.000 Where it says Tribunal Advocacy is collaborative and inquisitorial rather than adversarial, what that means is that 00:24:16.000 --> 00:24:23.000 clients aren't necessarily cross-examined in the way that a lot of people think of in a civil court 00:24:23.000 --> 00:24:28.000 What the tribunal is aiming to do is gather evidence to see 00:24:28.000 --> 00:24:37.000 What points to award, if it's a PIP claim or whether the client meets the conditions for an award for a benefit 00:24:37.000 --> 00:24:41.000 And not necessarily trying to trip someone up. 00:24:41.000 --> 00:24:51.000 It will be necessary to exercise your judgment. So sometimes you may only need to make a short submission on other occasions, you may need to intervene more actively. 00:24:51.000 --> 00:24:58.000 For example, if you have real concerns about a line of questioning or an interaction between the client and the panel 00:24:58.000 --> 00:25:09.000 indicate to the judge that you would just like to comment or ask. For example, you might ask, I noticed that the doctor has asked for leading questions in a row 00:25:09.000 --> 00:25:19.000 I wonder if we can ask something that our question that's more open, my client is getting upset. I wonder if we can have a few moments 00:25:19.000 --> 00:25:22.000 But you should be mindful not to intervene lightly 00:25:22.000 --> 00:25:26.000 You will have, like, these things 00:25:26.000 --> 00:25:29.000 It's best to let these things run course 00:25:29.000 --> 00:25:33.000 But if you have serious concerns, do you raise them with the judge? 00:25:33.000 --> 00:25:38.000 The more tribunals you appear in, the more experience you have 00:25:38.000 --> 00:25:42.000 the better able you will be to know when to intervene. 00:25:42.000 --> 00:25:47.000 Next slide 00:25:47.000 --> 00:25:52.000 So tribunal panels have different compositions 00:25:52.000 --> 00:25:58.000 And the composition of the panel will depend entirely on the type of hearing being heard 00:25:58.000 --> 00:26:04.000 Understanding who is sitting on the panel can help you understand how evidence may be evaluated. 00:26:04.000 --> 00:26:09.000 Sometimes judges sent alone, other times there's a panel 00:26:09.000 --> 00:26:20.000 For PIP claims, there will always be, there will nearly always be a three judge panel which will involve a doctor, a judge and a disability qualified member 00:26:20.000 --> 00:26:27.000 a disability qualified member is someone who might have a disability or have experience of disability 00:26:27.000 --> 00:26:33.000 In fitness to work cases, so that's ESA or Universal Credit 00:26:33.000 --> 00:26:36.000 There's typically a judge and a medical member 00:26:36.000 --> 00:26:45.000 And another benefit to might be a judge sitting alone, or a judge sitting with another specialist member, for example. 00:26:45.000 --> 00:26:51.000 an accountant, if it's a child support appeal 00:26:51.000 --> 00:27:02.000 Each member brings different expertise and perspectives to the evidence. And the point of this is that the tribunal draws on specialist expertise to help the panel make a decision 00:27:02.000 --> 00:27:07.000 And that's one of the ways of the tribunals enabling role 00:27:07.000 --> 00:27:14.000 It enables them to assist appellants who don't have legal representation. 00:27:14.000 --> 00:27:17.000 Next slide. 00:27:17.000 --> 00:27:33.000 So these are some of the procedural rules and case management rules for the tribunal. These rules can be found in the first tribunal procedure, first tier tribunal social entitlement Chambers Rules 2008 00:27:33.000 --> 00:27:38.000 And in Volume 3 of the Social Security Legislation books 00:27:38.000 --> 00:27:42.000 I've listed some of the more important roles here 00:27:42.000 --> 00:27:52.000 And there are far more rules than this, but I'm going to talk to you a bit more about rules 2 and 5, which are the rules you're most likely to encounter 00:27:52.000 --> 00:27:57.000 Rule 2 sets out the ground rules for 00:27:57.000 --> 00:28:00.000 That are governing the tribunal 00:28:00.000 --> 00:28:05.000 Important things to note about Rule 2 are proportionality 00:28:05.000 --> 00:28:11.000 Obviously, the tribunal wants to deal with matters fairly and justly, but what they have to consider 00:28:11.000 --> 00:28:19.000 is that the case has to be dealt with in a way that is proportionate to the issues that are arising and the overall cost of litigation 00:28:19.000 --> 00:28:22.000 And that refers to 00:28:22.000 --> 00:28:26.000 Rule 2A, where it says 00:28:26.000 --> 00:28:41.000 dealing with the case badly and justly includes dealing with a case in ways which are important to the… proportionate to the importance of the case, and the complexities of the issue, the anticipated costs and the resources of the parties. 00:28:41.000 --> 00:28:45.000 TB refers to formality and says that 00:28:45.000 --> 00:28:53.000 Tribunals should avoid unnecessary formality and seek flexibility in proceedings 00:28:53.000 --> 00:28:56.000 And what that means is that 00:28:56.000 --> 00:29:00.000 Avoiding unnecessary formality 00:29:00.000 --> 00:29:02.000 would be 00:29:02.000 --> 00:29:09.000 Not that the tribunals don't necessarily follow the rules that govern civil court proceedings 00:29:09.000 --> 00:29:15.000 Where there are quite intricate rules about the type of evidence that might be adduced, for example 00:29:15.000 --> 00:29:25.000 And the tribunal, the procedure is more flexible, but it is still a formal set of proceedings. For example, if you have an online hearing 00:29:25.000 --> 00:29:35.000 You can't have children in the hearing. The court expects there to be no one else in the room. It is still a formal courtroom. 00:29:35.000 --> 00:29:50.000 the tribunal should ensure as far as practicables that the parties can participate, and they will make efforts to put the client at ease and make more make reasonable adjustments to enable their participation and avoid delay. 00:29:50.000 --> 00:29:56.000 And avoid 00:29:56.000 --> 00:30:06.000 As far as practical and can be dealt with proportionately. For example, if somebody needs regular breaks. And lastly, I'll talk to you about avoiding delay. Avoiding delay as far as compatible with 00:30:06.000 --> 00:30:14.000 The other rules, and it's something to keep in mind when you're making an application for postponement and adjournment. 00:30:14.000 --> 00:30:22.000 Also, Rule 2 stipulates that the parties to the proceedings, including the DWP and the appellant, must help the tribunal to achieve the aims 00:30:22.000 --> 00:30:24.000 Of the 00:30:24.000 --> 00:30:34.000 Proceedings in the way I've just described and they have to cooperate with the tribunal generally. Rule 5 sets out the case management proceeding procedure 00:30:34.000 --> 00:30:48.000 Well, most cases are this is only going to arise if you're seeking an adjournment or postponement. Obviously, we all avoid that if you can, but if you do ask for one of those two things, it's important to make the application as soon as you know you will need 00:30:48.000 --> 00:30:54.000 It and the more notice, the better. An adjournment, you should explain clearly why the adjournment 00:30:54.000 --> 00:30:59.000 is needed and what has led up to it. For example, if your client has an illness 00:30:59.000 --> 00:31:09.000 And then also explain how long you expect your client to be ill, particularly if it's an issue about attendance 00:31:09.000 --> 00:31:15.000 Case management, which is governed by Rule 5 00:31:15.000 --> 00:31:23.000 There are other cases in the tribunal that can be quite legally complex or factually involved, and there may well be a case management hearing for those proceedings 00:31:23.000 --> 00:31:27.000 you might be making an application for directions 00:31:27.000 --> 00:31:39.000 And if you're making an application for directions, you want to set out to the tribunal while you're making a particular application for a direction, why you haven't been able to obtain evidence, for example. 00:31:39.000 --> 00:31:41.000 If you're asking the tribunal to ask someone to do something 00:31:41.000 --> 00:31:48.000 And you need to set out why you need that direction, but remember rule two about avoiding delay. 00:31:48.000 --> 00:31:52.000 And the tribunal will listen to applications, but bearing in mind 00:31:52.000 --> 00:32:03.000 You're doing when you're making an application of this nature, you're cutting across one of the primary objections objectives, which is to avoid delay so that you don't need to set out 00:32:03.000 --> 00:32:07.000 So you do need to set out what you want and why you want it. 00:32:07.000 --> 00:32:11.000 Next slide 00:32:11.000 --> 00:32:13.000 Just two minutes 00:32:13.000 --> 00:32:20.000 Okay, I'm last going to talk to you about AI in the tribunal. Next slide. 00:32:20.000 --> 00:32:29.000 There are some ethical considerations around maintaining confidentiality. If you are a representative in the tribunal, you have a responsibility for any inaccuracies. 00:32:29.000 --> 00:32:30.000 And 00:32:30.000 --> 00:32:39.000 I'm going to also talk to you about AI generated evidence. Next slide. 00:32:39.000 --> 00:32:42.000 So AI systems can generate convincing 00:32:42.000 --> 00:32:46.000 But entirely incorrect legal positions 00:32:46.000 --> 00:32:52.000 We've all heard about the high profile cases where there have been hallucinations 00:32:52.000 --> 00:32:59.000 Hallucinations. And those can arrive when 00:32:59.000 --> 00:33:08.000 AI misdescribes what the legal tests are, and it's well-publicized problem. As a rep, it's your responsibility to ensure your submissions are correct 00:33:08.000 --> 00:33:16.000 Another potential problem is that the way AMA contaminate your client's case. It might come up with generic answers 00:33:16.000 --> 00:33:27.000 If your client asks how to for suggestions on how to fill in a claim form and what's important about your client's answers, if they have used that tool is to double check that 00:33:27.000 --> 00:33:39.000 What they're saying is true and hasn't just been suggested because there's a potential it may… what's been suggested may contaminate the evidence and obscure your client's true voice. 00:33:39.000 --> 00:33:45.000 Lastly, as a representative, you can assist next slide 00:33:45.000 --> 00:33:48.000 You can assist the tribunal 00:33:48.000 --> 00:33:53.000 Where, if it does appear, AI has been used to manufacture evidence 00:33:53.000 --> 00:33:59.000 For example, a letter to the GP. You can assist the tribunal by 00:33:59.000 --> 00:34:02.000 setting 00:34:02.000 --> 00:34:06.000 If you've obtained the evidence, how you've obtained the evidence 00:34:06.000 --> 00:34:12.000 the procedure you went through for gathering the evidence, what the evidence was, and that you sent that evidence to the tribunal 00:34:12.000 --> 00:34:15.000 And this is to avoid 00:34:15.000 --> 00:34:19.000 undermining the veracity of the evidence. 00:34:19.000 --> 00:34:20.000 And 00:34:20.000 --> 00:34:24.000 That concludes my talk. 00:34:24.000 --> 00:34:37.000 Thank you so much, Brandi, really appreciate that. We will try and fit in an opportunity for questions at the end of the next session, but because some questions may get answered in the next session, we're going to move on 00:34:37.000 --> 00:34:57.000 to the next session. So the next session is called Life Jackets and Hard Hats, and I'm going to introduce our next two speakers. So we have Shirley Hayes from the National Deaf Children's Society. Shirley is a Send Appeals and Disability Benefits Specialist at the National Deaf Children's Society. She previously worked in third sector advice agencies supporting a range of client groups 00:34:57.000 --> 00:35:13.000 Shirley has acted as appellant representative in both social security and send first tier tribunal appeals. She currently supports deaf claimants across the UK and challenging disability benefit decisions at mandatory reconsideration or redetermination stage. 00:35:13.000 --> 00:35:23.000 Curly LLP works in partnership with the National Deaf Children's Society to provide pro bono representation to Deaf claimants in the first tier Social Security Tribunal in England and Wales 00:35:23.000 --> 00:35:32.000 Shirley graduated in law from BPP University in 2016, an associate member of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives at Paralegal Grade 00:35:32.000 --> 00:35:37.000 And our second speaker is Alex Radcliffe from Cooley LLP 00:35:37.000 --> 00:35:55.000 She's the pro bono Manager at Cooley. She practiced as a commercial litigator for 15 years prior to taking on her pro bono role in 2017. One of the first projects she implemented was the Disability Benefit Appeals work with the National Deaf Children's Society. The project has thrived and Alex, together with a large cohort 00:35:55.000 --> 00:36:16.000 of Cooley volunteers regularly represents clients at the first tier Social Security Tribunal in their DLA and PIP appeals. So over to you, Shirley and Alex. 00:36:16.000 --> 00:36:18.000 You're both on mute. 00:36:18.000 --> 00:36:21.000 At the moment 00:36:21.000 --> 00:36:27.000 It's possible that Shelly may be having technical issues. Oh, there she is. 00:36:27.000 --> 00:36:28.000 Perfect. 00:36:28.000 --> 00:36:29.000 Sorry, everyone, hello. 00:36:29.000 --> 00:36:43.000 No worries. 00:36:43.000 --> 00:36:46.000 Is that okay? 00:36:46.000 --> 00:36:49.000 Yes, I can see your slides perfectly 00:36:49.000 --> 00:37:04.000 That's great. Life jackets and hard hats, appellant and representative experiences in the first tier tribunal. This presentation is a snapshot of my experience as a representative in both SEND and Social Security 00:37:04.000 --> 00:37:19.000 Disability benefits appeals to the first tier tribunal, and the experience of appellants as expressed in their own words 00:37:19.000 --> 00:37:25.000 I'll cover 00:37:25.000 --> 00:37:28.000 Sorry 00:37:28.000 --> 00:37:31.000 I'll cover the appellant, what's at stake 00:37:31.000 --> 00:37:38.000 As explained in their own words, the tribunal rules and why they matter 00:37:38.000 --> 00:37:40.000 DWP and LA practices 00:37:40.000 --> 00:37:54.000 The resilient representative, and I'll summarize with some sources and recommendations, particularly with non-loyal representatives in mind. 00:37:54.000 --> 00:37:59.000 You have been a life jacket when I felt like I am drowning 00:37:59.000 --> 00:38:12.000 You've answered every question, even though I questioned absolutely everything and explained every step. You stood up for what was right alone, I would have gone insane 00:38:12.000 --> 00:38:27.000 The words for parents who appealed against the contents of their child's education and healthcare plan in the HCP, including against the school placement named by the local authority. The appeal was successful 00:38:27.000 --> 00:38:34.000 The parents' preferred school was named, and the appeal was settled before hearing. 00:38:34.000 --> 00:38:40.000 Without your help and the help of others, I know she wouldn't be where she is now 00:38:40.000 --> 00:38:54.000 It is hard work for all of us, and as this situation showed, sometimes it feels like I don't have the strength to keep fighting for what is right and what should be normal for her and all. 00:38:54.000 --> 00:39:08.000 This from a parent of a 16-year-old who appealed against the LA named post 16 college placement, so a Section I appeal, and the appeal was settled before the hearing. 00:39:08.000 --> 00:39:18.000 Our appreciation for Alex and her team is beyond words. They didn't just help us win a case. They helped us reclaim our voice. 00:39:18.000 --> 00:39:31.000 This from a parent of an 8-year-old deaf child. Previous DLA award was lost at review and the appeal was allowed by the first tier tribunal 00:39:31.000 --> 00:39:37.000 And here a parent uses social media to express their feelings about the SEND system 00:39:37.000 --> 00:39:46.000 We see a photo of a young child standing beside a plastic toy kitchen in the living room of a modest home 00:39:46.000 --> 00:39:52.000 The pale image and decor suggest the photo was taken around 13 years ago 00:39:52.000 --> 00:40:05.000 The caption reads, me messing about frying my fate chips in 1994 when I should be starting my child's EHC process and the battle for support 00:40:05.000 --> 00:40:21.000 No, there are 8,772 likes on this post, and 498 reshares. So this parent's humor appears to have resonated with many 00:40:21.000 --> 00:40:30.000 The tribunal rules Rule 2 is common to both the SEND tribunal rules and the Social Security Tribunal rules. 00:40:30.000 --> 00:40:37.000 The overriding objective is to enable the tribunal to deal with cases barely unjustly 00:40:37.000 --> 00:40:40.000 I highlight 3 paragraphs 00:40:40.000 --> 00:40:49.000 Dealing with a case fairly and justly includes avoiding formality and seeking flexibility in the proceedings 00:40:49.000 --> 00:41:07.000 Avoiding delay, so far as compatible with proper consideration of the issues, and the parties must help the tribunal further the overriding objective and cooperate with the tribunal generally 00:41:07.000 --> 00:41:19.000 There can be barriers to furthering the overriding objective. For example, systemic issues. Appellants can wait a very long time for a hearing date, often more than a year. 00:41:19.000 --> 00:41:31.000 There are some DWP practices, for example, claimants are sent a letter informing them that their mandatory reconsideration request has been unsuccessful 00:41:31.000 --> 00:41:43.000 MR is the stage before appeal when a claimant requests that the DWP reconsider the decision. The letter informs the claimant that a mandatory reconsideration notice will follow 00:41:43.000 --> 00:41:59.000 The MR notice is usually required or is required to lodge an appeal but often does not arrive until several weeks later or not at all. 40 year appellant's ability to meet the one month deadline 00:41:59.000 --> 00:42:08.000 To launch in a peer. Now, it is possible to lodge an appeal without the MR notice, but many claimants won't know that 00:42:08.000 --> 00:42:13.000 In sent appeal cases, the practices of local authorities can vary 00:42:13.000 --> 00:42:23.000 Some will instruct legal firms to act on their behalf. Some will have appeals teams where more than one representative has been allocated to a case 00:42:23.000 --> 00:42:27.000 And some representatives are more experienced than others 00:42:27.000 --> 00:42:30.000 Which can delay decisions 00:42:30.000 --> 00:42:32.000 Within 00:42:32.000 --> 00:42:33.000 Authorities 00:42:33.000 --> 00:42:48.000 Dispute resolution before hearing ought to be at the heart of tribunal appeals, but communication between the parties can be attractive. So whether I describe a successful send appeal as agreement reached between the parties 00:42:48.000 --> 00:42:56.000 As the ally conceded, rather depends on how I feel about my communication with the LNA 00:42:56.000 --> 00:43:03.000 I've had positive and not so positive experiences 00:43:03.000 --> 00:43:06.000 The resilient representative 00:43:06.000 --> 00:43:12.000 If a parent sometimes require a life jacket, representatives may sometimes need a hard hat 00:43:12.000 --> 00:43:25.000 The conduct of the tribunal is set by the judge and judges may have different expectations of a representative. 00:43:25.000 --> 00:43:36.000 Common to both sets of rules are representative in the first tier tribunal does not need to be legally trained. 00:43:36.000 --> 00:43:50.000 I've never been before Judge Jacobs in the Upper Tribunal or been asked to promote his book, but I do so anyway, as well as the PLP publication, The Basics of Tribunal representation. 00:43:50.000 --> 00:44:08.000 In this book, the author writes about the changing nature of tribunals over the years, including the proliferation and increased professionalism of non-lawyer representatives who seek greater involvement in hearings 00:44:08.000 --> 00:44:25.000 The increased case management and legalism amongst the judiciary and the demand for greater involvement by representatives have yet to be reconciled in theory and practice with the traditional enabling and inquisitorial 00:44:25.000 --> 00:44:37.000 approaches of some tribunals 00:44:37.000 --> 00:44:53.000 In Social Security Disability Tribunals, the panel will usually want to hear from the claimant themselves. This is to be expected since much of the applicable law is about how a claimant's disability affects their daily life. 00:44:53.000 --> 00:45:06.000 Memorably, I recall an in-person disability benefit tribunal, where I tried to intervene on behalf of my client, and the judge waved their hand at me and said, you just take your notes 00:45:06.000 --> 00:45:15.000 More recently, in the centre Ibunal, I experienced two separate judges who did not favor the idea of me putting my hand up 00:45:15.000 --> 00:45:32.000 during a virtual hearing. The first judge reacted in a way that if I hadn't been wearing my hard hat, could have made me feel embarrassed. The second judge was more measured. You don't need to raise your hand when it says, I will come to you 00:45:32.000 --> 00:45:40.000 In summary, for all of us involved in the tribunal system, it's worth remembering that actions or inactions matter 00:45:40.000 --> 00:45:45.000 And so do words. 00:45:45.000 --> 00:46:04.000 Here's some sources for presentation, and I recommend, especially for non-lawyer advisors, the excellent work of these organisations. I should have included rightsnet.org as well, which I recommend for advisors and representatives of welfare benefit claimants. 00:46:04.000 --> 00:46:20.000 We're the National Deaf Children's Society. Thank you. I'll hand over to Alex, our pro bono partners to speak about representation in the first tier Social Security Tribunal 00:46:20.000 --> 00:46:25.000 Thanks so much, Shirley. Over to you, Alex. 00:46:25.000 --> 00:46:40.000 Thank you so much. So as the one non-specialist member of the panel, what's going to follow is just some practical tips that I and my pool of volunteers have sort of garnered 00:46:40.000 --> 00:46:49.000 Along the way, specifically focused on representation, the first tier tribunal in respect of DLA and PIP appeals 00:46:49.000 --> 00:46:57.000 And looking at the period just prior to the hearing and the hearing itself 00:46:57.000 --> 00:46:58.000 So 00:46:58.000 --> 00:47:02.000 Just some practicalities in advance 00:47:02.000 --> 00:47:04.000 Of the hearing 00:47:04.000 --> 00:47:10.000 One question that clients can 00:47:10.000 --> 00:47:22.000 to you for advice on if you're instructed efficiently early in the process at the appeal notice stage is whether or not 00:47:22.000 --> 00:47:26.000 They should select a hearing in person or via video conference 00:47:26.000 --> 00:47:42.000 For some clients can leave or employment obligations will mean that only a video conference will be possible. But in all other cases, I would say PIP and DLA 00:47:42.000 --> 00:47:57.000 appeals would recommend an in-person hearing. That's for three reasons. The first is that it is easier to support your client if you're with them in the room. The second is that I, this may be my 00:47:57.000 --> 00:48:05.000 And unlucky experience that I often encounter technical issues with video conferences 00:48:05.000 --> 00:48:23.000 And thirdly, and probably most important, and it goes back to what Brandi said about learning when to intervene during the process, is that is very difficult in a video conference. You can't read the tribunal, you can't see what points are landing, you can't see if they're confused 00:48:23.000 --> 00:48:28.000 It's very difficult for you to sort of catch their eye as it were, to 00:48:28.000 --> 00:48:39.000 to give them direction or point to a document. So for those reasons, if possible, I would recommend in-person. It won't make any difference in terms of the listing. Certainly in DLA and peer appeals 00:48:39.000 --> 00:48:58.000 The second, and this point has for good reason, been covered by all three speakers. There are huge delays in the listing. If you ring up, as some of our clients have, the hotline, the suggestion is that PIP appeals to be waiting five months after filing the appeal notice 00:48:58.000 --> 00:49:05.000 And the DLA, seven months. Those are both minimums, but we have 00:49:05.000 --> 00:49:14.000 in the past few years, been nowhere near that quick, regularly seeing double or even triple those, those time estimates 00:49:14.000 --> 00:49:19.000 And clients really need to be prepared for that and manage their expectations about that. 00:49:19.000 --> 00:49:23.000 Then there are also some practical issues arising 00:49:23.000 --> 00:49:38.000 very easy to remember to update the tribunal as to dates to avoid at the outset when you're just putting the appeal notice in, or filing your submissions. It's easy to forget as time goes by, and as night follows day. 00:49:38.000 --> 00:49:52.000 You will find that your hearing is lifted on a day that either you or your client can't attend. That will get you into the territory of having to request an adjournment, then get you into the territory that Brandon was talking about, about delay. 00:49:52.000 --> 00:50:07.000 So do keep that in mind. A basic but practical point. Also, addressed by Brandi is that certainly in our experience dealing with children, their disabilities can change 00:50:07.000 --> 00:50:15.000 deteriorate and the impact of their disabilities on them, the amount of support and additional 00:50:15.000 --> 00:50:20.000 needs they have can change quite dramatically over a period of two years 00:50:20.000 --> 00:50:32.000 As Brandi emphasised, the relevant date for the tribunal, so the evidence that the tribunal is going to be concerned with, the facts are going to be concerned with is the date of the relevant data for the division 00:50:32.000 --> 00:50:48.000 So if there had been a significant deterioration, so that your client is going to be eligible for a higher rate, you need to get in a new claim in respect of that change as soon as possible 00:50:48.000 --> 00:51:01.000 that you should advise your client that that will create a long stock for the possible date of the award that you will subsequently get at Tribunal 00:51:01.000 --> 00:51:07.000 And finally, preparing for the hearing, clients will often say, what can I do to prepare? 00:51:07.000 --> 00:51:09.000 And my advice 00:51:09.000 --> 00:51:24.000 is very little, actually. I think it's important for clients to be authentic. You don't want an over-prepared client. One, it can add to the anxiety, which is naturally felt in advance of the hearing 00:51:24.000 --> 00:51:40.000 But you don't want parroted answers or any suggestion, that they are giving anything other than, a truthful and authentic response to their questions. You certainly don't want another advocate 00:51:40.000 --> 00:51:50.000 It is important, however, to talk them through the procedure on the day exactly what they can expect, so nothing comes as a surprise 00:51:50.000 --> 00:52:00.000 Just basics in terms of the hearing, the people involved, what you can expect, as Brandi mentioned in DLA and PI 00:52:00.000 --> 00:52:17.000 made up of three members, the tribunal judge always in the middle, medical member disqualified, disqualified, disability qualified member on either side. They're assisted by a clerk. Good just to interact with the clerk in advance to make sure that the tribunal has received 00:52:17.000 --> 00:52:30.000 all the documents that you have submitted and have had an opportunity to read those. Sometimes documents do go astray, so it's worth checking rather than having to deal with that once the hearing is underway 00:52:30.000 --> 00:52:46.000 You will be sitting on the left as you face the tribunal with your client next to you. If you're doing Dla cases, you're that will be the parent. The child does not need to attend in PIP 00:52:46.000 --> 00:53:01.000 You can have the child and the parent sitting next to them, but a point for the parents to note is they must not interrupt the questioning between the tribunal and the child. They mustn't answer for their child, however tempting it may be 00:53:01.000 --> 00:53:07.000 For them to do so, it is one way to really irritate a tribunal. 00:53:07.000 --> 00:53:19.000 Now, there may or may not be a presenting officer from the Dwp. I have seen an increase, but I don't believe that that experience has been shared by all panellists 00:53:19.000 --> 00:53:35.000 To me, there is no rhyme and reason in terms of when they do attend, other than if there's an order for them to attend. And they're not to be feared. In my experience 00:53:35.000 --> 00:53:45.000 They have almost to a person not had a good grip of the details of the case. They may ask 00:53:45.000 --> 00:54:00.000 They may be asked a question or two by the tribunal in terms of the decision-making process, and they may ask the appellant a question or two. But in my experience, they haven't had a material impact 00:54:00.000 --> 00:54:03.000 on the proceedings 00:54:03.000 --> 00:54:18.000 In terms of the procedure at the hearing, opening statement, I put a question mark by it, brevity is key, is a virtue, is Brandi said, the tribunal will have very recently read your submissions 00:54:18.000 --> 00:54:35.000 And they don't need you to simply repeat that. I generally just check that the tribunal has received the submissions, they've had an opportunity to read them, if they have any questions for me and leave it at that. However, I have had colleagues where they have been asked to give an opening statement 00:54:35.000 --> 00:54:39.000 So just have one in your back pocket in case that happens. 00:54:39.000 --> 00:54:41.000 Questioning 00:54:41.000 --> 00:54:57.000 Again, in my experience, it has been well thought out by tribunals. Division has been agreed, or apparently agreed in advance of the hearing. But do keep track of 00:54:57.000 --> 00:55:14.000 the issues that need to be covered and ensure that you're happy that everything that needs to be covered has been covered. There may be circumstances where the tribunal is happy with what has already been submitted in terms of the documentary evidence and submissions and any evidence 00:55:14.000 --> 00:55:20.000 You've provided with your submissions, in which case they won't ask any questions, but it is important that you 00:55:20.000 --> 00:55:35.000 Check that that is the case if an issue hasn't been covered. Also keep you should know your bundle inside out. If there is a document that's particularly pertinent to a line of questioning, that is a good point in which to suggest 00:55:35.000 --> 00:55:50.000 that to the tribunal that it… that you have a document that may assist. Some tribunals will say, yes, take us to that. Others may not. But that's an example of when it's good to be able to catch the eye of 00:55:50.000 --> 00:56:08.000 the tribunal. And again, in terms of relevant case law and guidance. If you feel that a line of questioning betrays a potential overlooking of some relevant case law and guidance, make a note of that, because you will want to come back to that 00:56:08.000 --> 00:56:20.000 the end. I put re-examination in quotes because it's not a formal re-examination. But at the end of the questioning 00:56:20.000 --> 00:56:31.000 Is there any area that you feel that the client hasn't given as clear evidence as you know that they can give? Is there something that you feel that they may miss 00:56:31.000 --> 00:56:47.000 have misunderstood in terms of the question being asked. If so, you can go back to that. Again, if you… if there's a particular issue that you want to draw out, go back to your clients. I tend to avoid it, because by that stage, once the questioning is finished, the clients tend to be exhausted and just 00:56:47.000 --> 00:57:01.000 want the process to be over, and may not give proper thought to the question that you're asking, so you get an answer that you're not expecting and isn't particularly helpful. So my advice on that would be keep it to a minimum, and only when necessary. 00:57:01.000 --> 00:57:13.000 Closing statement, I think this is worthwhile, but again, keep it brief. The main themes, the main issues and the evidence that supports them on which you rely. 00:57:13.000 --> 00:57:24.000 this is the time to if there is any guidance or case law that you think that the tribunal may have overlooked, this is the time to bring it out, so that that's fresh in their mind when they make the decision. 00:57:24.000 --> 00:57:41.000 And then finally, the decision can either be made that day, in which case the tribunal will ask you to leave the room, they will deliberate, and you'll be called back in to tell you what that decision is 00:57:41.000 --> 00:57:58.000 If the decision isn't made on the day or isn't given to you on the day, my experience is this is the one area where there is no delay. We have never had to wait long, a matter of days until that decision is received in the post 00:57:58.000 --> 00:58:17.000 And whilst we have highlighted some difficulties with the system, I think just to end on a note of positivity, in our experience over the last eight, nine years, the quality of the decision making 00:58:17.000 --> 00:58:24.000 has been excellent. So I will I will leave you with that 00:58:24.000 --> 00:58:36.000 Thank you so much, Alex and Shirley, and to our earlier two speakers for those really helpful insights and that guidance. We do have a couple of minutes 00:58:36.000 --> 00:58:51.000 For questions. So I'll draw out some questions that have been posted in the Q&A and do feel free to kind of volunteer to answer them. So the first one is about the level of formality 00:58:51.000 --> 00:59:10.000 When you're addressing and making submissions to the tribunal and sort of what level of formality and language is appropriate 00:59:10.000 --> 00:59:11.000 Yes, please, go ahead. 00:59:11.000 --> 00:59:18.000 Shall I take that? Would that be helpful? I mean, I think don't worry overly, don't worry overly about form. It's all about content 00:59:18.000 --> 00:59:25.000 And I think what's important is, you know, telling the tribunal what it is that you're seeking 00:59:25.000 --> 00:59:26.000 So, you know 00:59:26.000 --> 00:59:37.000 What result you want if it's a PIP appeal, for example, that you're seeking, you know, standard rate daily living, because you think your client should score 10 points 00:59:37.000 --> 00:59:42.000 And, you know, cooking and washing and the activities that are in issue 00:59:42.000 --> 00:59:45.000 So I think it's just about 00:59:45.000 --> 00:59:57.000 focusing on what you're saying, and just being clear about what you want, and, you know, if there is an issue in relation to the, you know, you have to challenge the basis of the decision 00:59:57.000 --> 01:00:13.000 you know, the reasons for the decision against you, that will nearly always come out in the positive evidence that you're putting forward to show why you meet the test anyway, but it can be useful if it's clear to you why a decision has gone against you 01:00:13.000 --> 01:00:15.000 to perhaps, you know. 01:00:15.000 --> 01:00:22.000 say why you would disagree with that. But it's more about setting out your stall and putting your case. 01:00:22.000 --> 01:00:27.000 Thank you. Any of the other panellists want to add anything to that? 01:00:27.000 --> 01:00:47.000 I will as a non-specialist, it was something that concerned me. I'm not familiar with the different terms. I was worried I was going to call judge something in sort of your own or and needn't do. There is a degree of informality. This is a process where they see lots of people acting on their own behalf without legal representation 01:00:47.000 --> 01:01:03.000 I think just wanting to be a desire to be helpful to move the case forward to direct the tribunal to the relevant points, as Emma has said, and just general courtesy will get you a long way 01:01:03.000 --> 01:01:08.000 You don't need to worry about getting a word wrong here or there. 01:01:08.000 --> 01:01:27.000 Thank you, that's really helpful responses. I'll now take two questions together that to do with case law. So the first one is about whether or not you need to include case law references in submissions or whether you can assume that the panel are all aware of the law 01:01:27.000 --> 01:01:39.000 And then the second question relating to case law is about whether to submit copies of any case law that you have referenced in your submissions, even if the case law is available online. 01:01:39.000 --> 01:01:53.000 Will I take that one to start with, then we'll see if anyone wants to chip in. I mean, first of all, I'd say please don't sprinkle case references through your submissions like confetti. You're probably only going to want 01:01:53.000 --> 01:02:10.000 In most cases, if you expressly reference a case at all, it would be 1 or 2, okay? Anything that you can find in the Disability Rights Handbook, in the CPAG Handbook, or in the Social Security Legislation series, you know, the meshes and Bon 01:02:10.000 --> 01:02:24.000 All of that should be known to the panel, and they have access to those books and they will have read that guidance themselves. And anything that's in there is kind of well established. 01:02:24.000 --> 01:02:26.000 So 01:02:26.000 --> 01:02:34.000 Mostly, you probably wouldn't need to cite or make express reference 01:02:34.000 --> 01:02:37.000 to case law 01:02:37.000 --> 01:02:54.000 What you're trying to do, I think, with the facts that you're pleading is showing the panel that you understand the law by the facts that you're putting in front of them. It's almost like the law is a glass and your facts are the water. And so your facts, you know kind of show the panel that you understand the legal 01:02:54.000 --> 01:03:04.000 issues. Obviously, references to the statutory provisions, you might want to structure your submissions in that way so that you've written out the statutory provision. 01:03:04.000 --> 01:03:17.000 If there is a legal point in your case and you feel that you do want to talk about case law, like I said, unless it's an unusual case, that there shouldn't be that much of it. Yes. 01:03:17.000 --> 01:03:23.000 cite the case reference and make sure it is an accurate reference that the judge can go away and look up 01:03:23.000 --> 01:03:38.000 You probably don't need to append a copy of the decision. Sometimes you might, particularly if it's an old one that was hard to find, for example, so that's a question of judgment, but if it's available online, usually just a reference will be 01:03:38.000 --> 01:03:41.000 sufficient 01:03:41.000 --> 01:03:58.000 But when you are citing case law, you do need to do that appropriately. So if you're going to talk about a case, number one, you need to read that case. Don't just read the guidance and what somebody else has told you that it said, because that can often be wrong. So you've got to read a case. Those can be anything from 01:03:58.000 --> 01:04:01.000 to 60 pages long, okay? So 01:04:01.000 --> 01:04:11.000 There's going to be limit as to how many you can read. And then so you're sure that it is relevant to what you want to talk about. And if you're going to quote a case, I always think 01:04:11.000 --> 01:04:30.000 The best way to do that, what I consider good practice, is you've got your citation. Do a brief factual summary, because often legal commentary is relevant to the specific facts that arose in that case. So a brief kind of thumbnail sketch of a factual summary as to what that case was about 01:04:30.000 --> 01:04:46.000 A little summary about the legal point that you think arises from that case, and then a few lines explaining why that's relevant in the factual or legal scenario that you find yourself. So it's not just a question of referencing 01:04:46.000 --> 01:04:55.000 the name of a case, if you're going to use a case, then you have to use it. So set out, you know what it was about, what it said, and why that's relevant 01:04:55.000 --> 01:05:01.000 For you. I don't know if you want to add to that, anyone. 01:05:01.000 --> 01:05:03.000 Because it's an important topic, I think. 01:05:03.000 --> 01:05:07.000 Well, I've learned something. I think, Emma, that 01:05:07.000 --> 01:05:19.000 I'm pleased I haven't come before you, because I think you'd probably be slightly irritated by the amount of referencing I do, and I will now curtail that practice, so thank you very much from that insight from your perspective. 01:05:19.000 --> 01:05:27.000 I mean, it's useful kind of scaffolding for your thought process if the cases have helped you to understand the legal tests 01:05:27.000 --> 01:05:35.000 But it's just about how you share that knowledge and understanding, I think, in order to make the most impact on the tribunal 01:05:35.000 --> 01:05:44.000 I would comment on that a bit though, Emma, because you know you said about if it's old case law 01:05:44.000 --> 01:06:01.000 Quite a lot of case law relating to death payments is, in fact, all case law and case law that we rely on from the 90s in relation to deaf children. So, I mean, Alex does our work, our representation work 01:06:01.000 --> 01:06:10.000 I have done previously for deaf children. So we find that the selective and careful use of case law 01:06:10.000 --> 01:06:17.000 Because we do it when we're in my role now write letters of advice 01:06:17.000 --> 01:06:25.000 to claimants in which they can submit as evidence at mandatory reconsideration stage. And we do 01:06:25.000 --> 01:06:45.000 carefully quote case law relevant to the facts of that case. That's the important bit that you've said there, isn't it that it's important that you don't just throw it in and see if it sticks, but that actually you can say why you want 01:06:45.000 --> 01:06:46.000 Yeah. 01:06:46.000 --> 01:06:57.000 The case will to be applied to your client's case. And also whether because some case law relevant to children generally that may not be relevant to deaf children is still relevant 01:06:57.000 --> 01:07:04.000 If you want the panel to consider that or follow the reasoning 01:07:04.000 --> 01:07:06.000 So 01:07:06.000 --> 01:07:12.000 Careful use of it. I'm personally in favor of 01:07:12.000 --> 01:07:33.000 Absolutely, Shelly. I wouldn't disagree with any of that. And the only point I made about older case law is as to that, I think that went to the question as to whether you should send a copy of the case in 01:07:33.000 --> 01:07:34.000 Yeah. 01:07:34.000 --> 01:07:36.000 And I think with some of the older case law, it can be not available online. So then you might want to attach a copy of that judgment. More stuff from kind of 01:07:36.000 --> 01:07:46.000 this century tends to be most, you know, from about 2008, it tends to be online. Anything pre-2008, there's limited resources. 01:07:46.000 --> 01:07:51.000 And rights now have a very good case law 01:07:51.000 --> 01:07:53.000 archive talk through 01:07:53.000 --> 01:07:54.000 They do 01:07:54.000 --> 01:08:01.000 Which is why I feel a bit guilty that didn't put them on my slide at the end. Mention them again 01:08:01.000 --> 01:08:17.000 Thank you so much. So we'd you a short break now for 10 minutes returning promptly at 3:20. So I just really wanted to thank again Brandi and Emma and Shirley and Alex for those excellent talks 01:08:17.000 --> 01:08:19.000 And 01:08:19.000 --> 01:08:25.000 As I say, short break and back at 3.20. I don't know, Nicole, whether there's anything else you wanted to flag up at this point. 01:08:25.000 --> 01:08:41.000 No, no, I think just to thank all the speakers for the very structured and very informative session. And I can see the speakers for the next session already joined very early, so thank you. And yeah, please be back at 3:20. 01:08:41.000 --> 01:08:48.000 And we will start the next session at that time. 01:08:48.000 --> 01:08:51.000 And thank you, Vic, for chairing. 01:08:51.000 --> 01:08:58.000 Thank you. It's a really interesting session. 01:08:58.000 --> 01:09:01.000 Okay. 01:09:01.000 --> 01:09:02.000 I see Vic 01:09:02.000 --> 01:09:05.000 Hi Farida! 01:09:05.000 --> 01:09:06.000 Hi, Nicole, how's it going? 01:09:06.000 --> 01:09:14.000 Good, good. I think the session was very, very informative. I know nothing about Tribunal, so it was a kind of learning session for myself as well 01:09:14.000 --> 01:09:17.000 Seems very lively, the end, anyway, which is good so lots of stuff 01:09:17.000 --> 01:09:24.000 Lots of questions. I think people will definitely be looking forward to 01:09:24.000 --> 01:09:25.000 Your parts 01:09:25.000 --> 01:09:42.000 Good. Excellent. Well, it all seems to be working fine. I joined because I was worried I was going to have some tech meltdown. I have got there are some internet issues going, intermittent internet issues, but what I've done, I've got my hotspot going so if my broadband goes out 01:09:42.000 --> 01:09:59.000 I should be able to hop quickly onto my hotspot, but hopefully nothing's going to go wrong. It hasn't gone out all day, but I have a message from Virgin Media saying it's not going to be fixed till 6, so… 01:09:59.000 --> 01:10:02.000 Oh, that's great. I feel like you're here now, so 01:10:02.000 --> 01:10:13.000 Hey, I'm here now, yes. 01:10:13.000 --> 01:10:14.000 Yeah, yeah, that's fine. 01:10:14.000 --> 01:10:19.000 Oh, good. Just to mention the audience are still here with us. They might be on break, but some of them might still be on the chat. Great. Hi, Millie. Hi, Jo. 01:10:19.000 --> 01:10:20.000 Hello 01:10:20.000 --> 01:10:21.000 How's it going? 01:10:21.000 --> 01:10:23.000 Good 01:10:23.000 --> 01:10:28.000 We've had a lot of people in the session 01:10:28.000 --> 01:10:29.000 That's brilliant. 01:10:29.000 --> 01:10:33.000 Yeah, see your numbers. It's great. 01:10:33.000 --> 01:10:42.000 Just to mention, Farida and Jo, I have both of your slides, so I will be sharing them. 01:10:42.000 --> 01:10:47.000 Great. If you want to go grab a cup of coffee or a tea 01:10:47.000 --> 01:10:48.000 You can come back in advise 01:10:48.000 --> 01:11:18.000 We still have… yeah, we still have 5 minutes. I will go to that, actually. See you in a bit. 01:16:14.000 --> 01:16:33.000 Hi, Brian! No, the session is not over. We were just having a break, and we are actually coming back in one minute at 320. So I think quite a lot of people are still here, so I'm just going to kind of reiterate, if you have any question, please do drop them in the Q&A box 01:16:33.000 --> 01:16:49.000 So that's a little box at the bottom of your screen with a little question mark on it. The reason why we ask that is if you drop your question in the chat, it might be kind of pushed up and we might miss your question. So if you can make sure to drop your question in the Q&A box, that would be 01:16:49.000 --> 01:16:58.000 Great. And I can see the speakers for our next session already all here. So I'm just going to 01:16:58.000 --> 01:17:16.000 bring this up again, you have been amazing, not mentioning any specific cases, but for those who are just joining the session, we ask you kindly not to ask any question regarding personal cases, because the panel cannot give you any legal advice 01:17:16.000 --> 01:17:27.000 This is a general training on the knowledge of tribunals. So without further ado, I'm going to hand the mic to Millie, who's the chair of the session. 01:17:27.000 --> 01:17:28.000 Really, here you go 01:17:28.000 --> 01:17:48.000 Great. Thank you so much, Nicole. Hi everyone, it's really good to speak with you today. My name is Millie Hawes and I will be chairing our panel of expert session for the next half an hour. Just in terms of a very quick background to who I am and what I do. So I actually have two roles. So I am head of our pro bono and community program at a law firm called Field Fisher 01:17:48.000 --> 01:18:09.000 But more importantly today, I'm also a disability qualified tribunal member, so I sit specifically within the social entitlement Chamber in the Social Security and Child Support section. So I'll be chairing today's discussion, and we're going to be discussing different perspectives on what successful advocacy looks like, and also talking through some of the enablers and barriers 01:18:09.000 --> 01:18:26.000 to the use of tribunals. As Nicole said, we are inviting questions for this session, so if you do have questions for our panellists, please do put them in the Q&A. But first, we're going to start with some introductions from our experts. So I'm going to hand over first to Judge Noel Arnold 01:18:26.000 --> 01:18:30.000 to introduce himself, his role and any opening thoughts. 01:18:30.000 --> 01:18:37.000 Thanks, Millie. I hope everyone can hear me okay and good afternoon. 01:18:37.000 --> 01:18:52.000 So, my name's Noel Arnold, I am a district tribunal judge, which is a salary judge, and I sit in the social entitlement Chamber of the Festier Tribunal, but specifically the Social Security and Child Support Jurisdiction, which 01:18:52.000 --> 01:18:56.000 the same jurisdiction that Millie just mentioned that she sits in 01:18:56.000 --> 01:19:17.000 So a lot of what you have been discussing or hearing so far can resonates with me because I sit in the Social Security Tribunal, which we sometimes we call it Social Security for short, although it's Social Security and Child Support. I've held that office or 01:19:17.000 --> 01:19:24.000 salary judge for over 6 years now, and I hear all types of appeals 01:19:24.000 --> 01:19:45.000 across the different jurisdictions that we deal with. So, in terms, of my reflections on the kind of questions and considerations that you have been discussing so far, in terms of successful advocacy and representation in, in my particular tribunal 01:19:45.000 --> 01:20:04.000 I had various thoughts that I thought I'd try to offer you. Nili, if I'm running to overtime, please tell me, but I'll just quickly rattle through these. Mainly in our jurisdiction, and if I kind of omit child support, because that's such a category on its own, but we have different 01:20:04.000 --> 01:20:13.000 categories of appeals that they've been given numbers, so 03 is PIP and DLA and attendance allowance 01:20:13.000 --> 01:20:23.000 O4 is usually about limited capability for work, and that could be, within the Universal Credit benefit, or it could be ESA 01:20:23.000 --> 01:20:27.000 which is now really a legacy benefit 01:20:27.000 --> 01:20:30.000 And then finally, O1 is kind of a 01:20:30.000 --> 01:20:46.000 category, which is really everything else. So usually, I think as you've already heard, those appeals are heard by a judge alone. In my experience, mainly we have representatives, if we do have representatives, if we're lucky enough to have a representative, they're 01:20:46.000 --> 01:20:50.000 a representative for either PIP, DLA 01:20:50.000 --> 01:21:06.000 or limited capability for work appeal. So I'm going to kind of focus some of my thoughts or reflections on those categories. O1, which is this kind of other umbrella category, usually the appeals there are very much about regulations and whether 01:21:06.000 --> 01:21:11.000 an appellant met the relevant regulation or the relevant tests 01:21:11.000 --> 01:21:29.000 And so when we do have a representative, normally their submissions are quite focused on the law, whereas the appeals that we've been discussing so far, at least in relation to Social Security, are very, very, very fact-specific because they're about usually they're about someone's disability or health condition 01:21:29.000 --> 01:21:44.000 And the extent to which that health condition impacts on their life, as you heard. So, so it just just thinking about those two then what I would say and I might be repeating some of what other people had said, one is that 01:21:44.000 --> 01:22:02.000 Please don't teach us the law. We are all trained. The judges, the disability qualified tribunal member, and the medical qualified tribunal member have all had training on the law, so you can, to a certain extent, expect that we know the statutory 01:22:02.000 --> 01:22:18.000 framework, please don't rehearse all of that in a submission. The other thing about the case law, and I know you've discussed this a lot, is that generally what I would say is, as a rule of thumb, is that, again, expect that your panel of 01:22:18.000 --> 01:22:32.000 of judge and specialist members know the relevant case law, where there is a particular case that, or a particular aspect of your client's appeal which you think is unique, then obviously you may want to refer to the case law 01:22:32.000 --> 01:22:50.000 The other thing I would say, particularly with pepper pills, is that please really, really focus your submission on what the client may realistically achieve in terms of the applicable descriptors. I tend not to talk about points, because 01:22:50.000 --> 01:22:58.000 I always say I don't care about the points, I care about selecting the correct descriptor that meets the compliance 01:22:58.000 --> 01:23:00.000 or the appellants often 01:23:00.000 --> 01:23:17.000 or functional limitation. The consequences that by selecting X or Y descriptors, you add up the points, and that may result in an award or not an award. In a sense, I'm not bothered about the points. I just want to select the right descriptor. So focus, please, your submissions on 01:23:17.000 --> 01:23:32.000 on what is the relevant descriptor. And don't just rehearse what your client tells you. Try to look at where there might be other evidence in the bundle that assists you to show or demonstrate that that is the appropriate descriptor, and tell us the page number 01:23:32.000 --> 01:23:46.000 That is really helpful to us. But just rehearsing that your client says she can't do X or Y is probably a little unhelpful, because we will be asking those questions in the live hearing anyway. 01:23:46.000 --> 01:24:02.000 I would just very quickly also say, don't tell us a lot about your client's health conditions. A lot of that information is already in the bundle, and invariably, the DWP are not disputing that your client has X or Y health condition 01:24:02.000 --> 01:24:17.000 What they are disputing is the extent to which that functional that sorry, the extent to which the condition affects their functional ability with the PIP activities. So there's no point rehearsing lots of information about the health condition when it started 01:24:17.000 --> 01:24:37.000 what the diagnosis was, who diagnosed it. So again, if I can remind you, really focus on the particular activities that your client is struggling with, the activities of PIP, and which descriptor you say is the appropriate descriptor. Again, please refer to any other evidence, documentary evidence, GP notes, etc, which may help us 01:24:37.000 --> 01:24:53.000 Also, please, and I know it was said before, but again, to repeat the point, because it's important, focus on the required period. So, work out when is the required period for your appeal, and focus everything on that, because we… we cannot take into account 01:24:53.000 --> 01:25:15.000 things that are before that required period or after that required period. So we're looking at… usually it's a period of one year. That period depends on when your client made the claim, and sometimes there are other complications about the required period, but generally, it's one year, and it starts three months before your client made the original claim for PIP. So, work out what the required period is and focus everything on that 01:25:15.000 --> 01:25:38.000 In terms of the hearing, just a couple of points I would say. We as a panel get together about half an hour before the first hearing starts, and we have previewed, we have discussed and previewed the appeal, so we do have an idea about how we want to conduct the hearing, what we want to focus on. So you can take for granted that we've thought about all of that before 01:25:38.000 --> 01:25:55.000 you know, invite you in and start. Also, please help us by bearing in mind that we have very limited time, so we normally have a standard, standard PIP appeal, if you can say anything, is standard, is one hour 01:25:55.000 --> 01:26:11.000 And that really goes very fast. By the time we've done our introductions, we have… we have so limited time. So please help us by bearing that in mind that there's so much to get through. And that's another reason why I say try to focus on specific activities 01:26:11.000 --> 01:26:28.000 And not just throw everything in. Often, I have seen representations from pro bono representatives, you know, who are lawyers at very, very great law firms. I can see their credentials are brilliant, but when they come to a PIP hearing, they're asking for, you know, 36 points 01:26:28.000 --> 01:26:42.000 which it never really happens, in my experience, you know, most appellants don't end up getting 36 points, but it's just because they've asked for higher-scoring descriptor of every single one of the 12 activities 01:26:42.000 --> 01:26:59.000 there may be a case where that is necessary, but I would suggest that usually that's rare. So bear in mind the time. Opening and closing submissions, I think probably just be guided by the tribunal. I've never asked a representative to give an opening submission, particularly because they've given 01:26:59.000 --> 01:27:17.000 to us in the written submission, so I'm not going to ask a representative to rehearse all of that. We've read it, we will be guided by it, and we can press on with the oral evidence. And then finally, it is actually very informal. Certainly in my tribunal, and it's 01:27:17.000 --> 01:27:35.000 We try to be as friendly as possible. Yes, we're doing a really important justice process, so there is a degree of formality, and there's boundaries that I certainly am not very happy about people crossing, but generally, I would say it's informal, it's fairly friendly, and we are enabling. So 01:27:35.000 --> 01:27:54.000 you know, invariably, we don't have a representative, and we still have to get on with that hearing, so we… it's just us and the appellant, and we enable that appellant to give their best evidence to enable us to make a decision. So, yeah, bear in mind that there's nothing really, I would say, to be intimidated by 01:27:54.000 --> 01:27:56.000 I'll stop now. Thank you, Millie. 01:27:56.000 --> 01:28:05.000 Thank you, Noel. Some excellent top tips to get us started. Right, I'm going to hand over now to Judge Farada Eden to give her perspective. 01:28:05.000 --> 01:28:20.000 Excellent. Hello, everyone. I'm Fareed Eden. I've been a tribunal judge since 2014, so I started off fee-paid, and I sat in the Mental Health Tribunal, and I've also sat in Immigration and Special Educational Needs 01:28:20.000 --> 01:28:38.000 So I became a salary judge in 2019 and mostly I do disability discrimination in schools cases and special educational needs cases, which are cases about education, health and care plans. As a recorder in the family court as well 01:28:38.000 --> 01:28:56.000 for a bit of light relief. And before that, in my previous life, I was a government lawyer, so I advised central government departments. We got a slide deck perfect excellent. So I thought I'd put a bit of structure around what I was saying so that you've got that later 01:28:56.000 --> 01:29:00.000 So we can move to the next slide. 01:29:00.000 --> 01:29:25.000 So I'd start, I think most of you would be most likely to be involved in send hearings, which are about education, health and care plans. So I wanted to tell you a bit more about what they're like. They're issues-based. So what we tend to do is get an issue, hear evidence from it, and we jump from one witness to another in a way that can be quite disconcerting for advocates who are used to a strict order of witnesses and evidence taken on 01:29:25.000 --> 01:29:42.000 Oh, so you just need to be prepared to be quite nimble, and also, if you were presenting a case, to think which of my witnesses can present best on this point, and be prepared to come back and dip in and out of your witnesses. And we are absolutely an inquisitorial 01:29:42.000 --> 01:29:59.000 Jurisdiction panel will be very interventionist. The judges get to know quite a lot about education and disability, and obviously we're sitting with one or two specialist members, ex-head teachers, Ofsted inspectors, educational psychologists, so they really know their stuff 01:29:59.000 --> 01:30:03.000 And they're going to be interested and ask a lot of questions 01:30:03.000 --> 01:30:21.000 A really important point, we're forward looking, so we're looking at what's happening now. So there might have been a lot of failings by the local authority in the past, there might have been a different presentation for this child in the past, but what we're looking at is what does the evidence as at this point, tell us about this child now 01:30:21.000 --> 01:30:36.000 It is a collaborative and a child-focused process. We expect you not to be obviously all going to do the best for your client, but it's not about winning or losing. It's about getting the right outcome for this child who's in front of the tribunal 01:30:36.000 --> 01:30:56.000 And in light of that, obviously you can test the evidence, but we don't expect full-on cross examination. There's a degree of courtesy and a degree of collaborativeness which precludes that. So you'll be asking questions, but they're put in a way which is helpful to the tribunal and to everyone there 01:30:56.000 --> 01:31:14.000 I know there are some people from local authorities, just to remind the local authorities have a duty of candy. We need all your cards on the table because local authorities are public authorities and there's upper tribunal authority saying you need to tell us everything that's happening, whether it's helpful to your case or not 01:31:14.000 --> 01:31:17.000 Next slide. 01:31:17.000 --> 01:31:34.000 I wanted to say a little bit about the context. So that graph is our appeals since 2018-19 when I started sitting in SEN, there were about 4,000 appeals a year. I thought, well, I'm not sure I'm going to get 30 sitting days 01:31:34.000 --> 01:31:50.000 As of last year, we got 25,000 appeals, and that is still increasing. You can see from the graph that it's going up. We have a busy period in the run-up to the end of the academic year, so 01:31:50.000 --> 01:32:08.000 Local authorities need to name secondary placements by mid-February, and then there's two months to appeal, and we want to decide those appeals before the new term, so the children can start their secondary schools. So that means about now, there's a huge amount of work happening in the tribunal 01:32:08.000 --> 01:32:11.000 So next slide 01:32:11.000 --> 01:32:27.000 So in light of that, if you come to us, we really need you to make the most of the date. So you've got a tribunal hearing, it needs to be effective. You need to get through it in the time allocated. So, as I said, forward-looking 01:32:27.000 --> 01:32:42.000 I do understand that parents who come to the tribunal have probably had a really difficult time, and there's quite often been a lot of things that have gone wrong, but we need to focus on what's happening now. So, what's happening now? What are the issues? 01:32:42.000 --> 01:32:58.000 Cut out all the side issues, focus on what this appeal is about. Is it about whether an EHC plan is necessary? Is it about what's in the plan? And that will always be about those three things, special educational needs, special educational provision 01:32:58.000 --> 01:33:15.000 and educational placement. So those are the only things that you need to talk about. People tend to bring in a lot of other law and failings, and that's not anything we can deal with. Lots of people have already said issue, and we know the law, we do, we do these all the time, we're an expert tribunal 01:33:15.000 --> 01:33:31.000 Please think about whether you need to make the application to bar the local authority. It's probably going to take half an hour. Think about your late evidence. Do we really need it? We really need you to help us to get through this case on the day and the time that's allocated 01:33:31.000 --> 01:33:46.000 And I'll just briefly say working documents, because I expect most of you wouldn't know what those are. Working documents are basically a draft of the education, health and care plan, and everyone puts their changes on it, and then we decide which changes we're going to agree 01:33:46.000 --> 01:34:02.000 That can become a bit of a nightmare. You don't need to haggle over individual words, you don't need to copy and paste your entire expert report. So let's, again, focus on the issues and don't turn that working document into a battleground. Next slide 01:34:02.000 --> 01:34:14.000 And I briefly wanted to talk about the disability discrimination jurisdiction. That's a much smaller jurisdiction, probably going to be about 450 appeals or claims this year. 01:34:14.000 --> 01:34:34.000 These are claims under the Equality Act and they're against schools by parents or pupils. They are legally complex and you should think very carefully just because you can do a send appeal, that doesn't mean you should do a disability discrimination claim. Think very carefully about whether this is something you're able and have the expertise to do 01:34:34.000 --> 01:34:56.000 You do need, this is the exception, we do need you to talk about the law in these cases. They are more adversarial. They're party, party litigation, but they're still those informal facilitative tribunal proceedings. And I put a quote there from the upper tribunal explaining that even though these are adversarial proceedings, more like court proceedings 01:34:56.000 --> 01:35:10.000 We still are furthering the overriding objective, which is in our rules about being just and fair, and we're still making sure everyone can put their case forward, and that's going to involve supporting unrepresented parents 01:35:10.000 --> 01:35:27.000 The other thing, if you are used to doing these cases in the county court or the employment tribunal, we do them a lot quicker, which is right because we don't want to take a head teacher or a Senko out of school for five days, but we do do in one day what might be done elsewhere in five or ten days 01:35:27.000 --> 01:35:40.000 So you need to move quickly and be guided by the tribunal. We don't want to lose the time that we have through unnecessary questioning. So really focused and lighter touch. 01:35:40.000 --> 01:35:43.000 So that was all I had to say on my top tips 01:35:43.000 --> 01:35:58.000 Thank you, Farida, and sorry my light has just gone out, so I'm now in darkness. Apologies for that. Just as a quick follow-up, Farida, we did have a question sent to us in advance as to whether the Sen Tribunal, in your experience, have become more adversarial. Do you have any comments on that? 01:35:58.000 --> 01:36:14.000 So, I thought about that in advance, and I thought, actually, no. So, I think probably because we have here people who are involved in tribunals advocacy, they see a small proportion of the cases that we see, so most of our cases don't involve any lawyers at all 01:36:14.000 --> 01:36:33.000 We've got an unrepresented parent and a tribunal, local authority tribunals officer. There are a minority of cases where there are lawyers, and that's either because you have a well-resourced parent or you have a placement which is going to cost hundreds and thousands of pounds a year, and the local authority feels the need to 01:36:33.000 --> 01:36:57.000 defend that in the best way possible. So those are the cases which tend to be adversarial. What I have found is things have probably got worse tempered, and that is because of the sort of wider background, which I think everyone knows about. We have a white paper about send provision at the moment that the resources are very stretched and I think parents are coming to us 01:36:57.000 --> 01:37:13.000 After a very long and frustrating battle, and that is making them more angry, I suppose, with local authorities, less able to compromise, and I think the tribunal's officers who we see are completely overloaded, that they have more work than they can 01:37:13.000 --> 01:37:18.000 handle. So I'd say not more adversarial, worse tempered. 01:37:18.000 --> 01:37:25.000 Very well put, thank you. Dr. Joe Hines, over to you for your introduction and opening thoughts. 01:37:25.000 --> 01:37:41.000 Thanks very much, Millie, and afternoon, folks. Zachio Hines, I'm a researcher at the University of Glasgow, and I'm working on a project examining how accessible and user-focused tribunals are. So we've been observing over 100 tribunal hearings across Scotland and England 01:37:41.000 --> 01:38:02.000 in a social security, housing and health and education chambers, and also interviewing lots of tribunal panel members and representatives and appellants. The aim being to kind of understand all practicing all successful tribunals have been in implementing work for vision that might be more focused on users than perhaps courts sometimes are 01:38:02.000 --> 01:38:09.000 See what the good practices and make recommendations, but where the focus on users could be strengthened 01:38:09.000 --> 01:38:12.000 And next slide please Nicole background 01:38:12.000 --> 01:38:30.000 Super, so as a staff attend, I thought I'd give you, sort of, headline findings at this point in my research. I'm very conscious that my segment is really less… of less practical value to you all than I'll whip through quite quickly. But we're still in the process of collecting data, so this is just a snapshot, but 01:38:30.000 --> 01:38:45.000 We'll finalize the findings by the end of the year, and we're still hoping to speak to lots of my representatives at Pellence and tribunal panel members. So, I'll send my email address around to either PLP team after today if anyone has time to speak with us about their trivial experiences, that 01:38:45.000 --> 01:39:00.000 Much appreciated. But the interim findings at the moment fall into three key areas, so communication and tone, the level of formality, and the mode of hearing. I'll take those each in turn briefly. 01:39:00.000 --> 01:39:15.000 Next slide, please, Nicole Grant. So first off, communication and tone. So creating and enabling atmosphere was the most important part of us, and we saw lots of good practice of us in our observations of tribunal hearings from panel members 01:39:15.000 --> 01:39:33.000 So, it's included things like referencing at the beginning of a hearing, where submissions have been read and engaged with. So, as I think both Rida and Nolan mentioned earlier, but things don't need to be repeated because the panel has… is up to speed with the case 01:39:33.000 --> 01:39:44.000 Signposting progress throughout the hearing, so signalling what's next, what will come later, how much longer the hearing is expected to last, and just orientating users, particularly at the beginning and the end of hearings. 01:39:44.000 --> 01:39:57.000 And then framing questions with explanations about their purpose, particularly for potentially more intrusive or more confrontational questions, so people can understand, where panel members are coming from in their line of inquiry. 01:39:57.000 --> 01:40:14.000 And then lastly, I miss just heightened devotions, particularly around like stress and anxiety, who are generally really well dealt with by panel members, for example, offering breaks, tissues, phrasing questions sensitively, and only asking questions are strictly necessary to make a decision 01:40:14.000 --> 01:40:27.000 But telephone and video hearings, and in more adversarial hearings in certain chambers, it was a bit more difficult for panel members to spot signs of distress and to be able to make those adjustments. 01:40:27.000 --> 01:40:38.000 Next slide, please, Nicole. So secondly, on a formality and I'm a nature appearance. So for tribunal Chambers, we've been observing a really varying quite widely in terms of 01:40:38.000 --> 01:40:58.000 the nature of the hearings and the level of formality that they've adopted, some being largely adversarial and others much more acquisitorial. And so far, it's not been entirely obvious that either hearing type is always more user-friendly, so with adversarial formats, it's obviously sometimes quite difficult for the user to participate meaningfully, especially if they're represented 01:40:58.000 --> 01:41:06.000 But then, more inquisitorial and peering formats could at times come across as more of a grilling and more about extracting information. 01:41:06.000 --> 01:41:22.000 And generally the level of formality has varied, so perhaps there's been less explicitly legalistic language than we perhaps expected, but more technical language, so acronyms, for example, and more subtle expectations of formality 01:41:22.000 --> 01:41:27.000 In some chambers, particularly around rules of evidence. 01:41:27.000 --> 01:41:29.000 Next slide, please, Nicole. 01:41:29.000 --> 01:41:45.000 So very briefly, lastly, I'm a hearing mode. So we've observed hearings across the full spectrum, telephone, video, and in-person hearings, as well as hybrid, so are often in person and other participants are online 01:41:45.000 --> 01:42:00.000 So telephone hearings seem to present the most challenges, but this depended on the type of case and how many participants there were. And it's also the technology that most people are more familiar with, and not being to see may be preferable for some users 01:42:00.000 --> 01:42:13.000 So we're trying to untangle the kind of the user preference and the possible impact on outcomes from our interviews as well as your observations 01:42:13.000 --> 01:42:28.000 But when hearing person, often they were held in court buildings, particularly magistrates courts, which can add to a sense of formality or that people were on trial having to use the same waiting rooms, for example, as people use in the magistrates courts 01:42:28.000 --> 01:42:38.000 different hearing rooms, panel members often had to work quite hard to create a set of tribunal style user-focused hearing in what is explicitly a court space 01:42:38.000 --> 01:42:54.000 So there are some of our thoughts so far, but I'm really looking forward to hearing about the panel and Miss experiences here today and any thoughts they have on what we've been seeing so far as part of this work, and anyone in the audience, too, if anyone has any experiences or comments to share in the Q&A or follow up after the session. 01:42:54.000 --> 01:42:55.000 That sucks. 01:42:55.000 --> 01:43:21.000 Thank you very much, Jo. And that leads very nicely into a conversation that I wanted to have around hearings in a post-COVID world. I think I've certainly noticed quite a difference. Obviously, we have a lot of hearings now that are either telephone hearings or video hearings and actually the panel's experience of how that differs and how effective hearings can be when they're done remotely. Noel and Fareed, if I go to you, or no, you've got your hand up, so I'll go to you first. 01:43:21.000 --> 01:43:31.000 In terms of your experience of yet dealing with remote hearings and how to do that effectively when often people are faced with technology challenges, for example. 01:43:31.000 --> 01:43:41.000 Thanks, Millie. I put my hand up quickly only because I do have a fairly strong view on it, which is this, is if as a representative, you have any 01:43:41.000 --> 01:43:43.000 sway 01:43:43.000 --> 01:43:49.000 persuading your client, as to what mode of hearing to opt for 01:43:49.000 --> 01:44:03.000 I would suggest that you try to persuade them to attend a face-to-face hearing for a few reasons and actually I think some of these have been touched on already. One, the technical problems that 01:44:03.000 --> 01:44:13.000 Unfortunately, often occur with remote hearings are eliminated if you come face to face. Secondly, I think that the panel 01:44:13.000 --> 01:44:30.000 We'll be able to more easily form an impression of your client and how they are if they come to a face-to-face hearing, of course that can be done during a remote hearing, but it's a little harder to do. It's always more challenging 01:44:30.000 --> 01:44:45.000 And also, I think that you're much, and I think Alex may have said this, that you're in a much better position to support your client through the hearing if you're there physically in the room with them, and they have that 01:44:45.000 --> 01:45:02.000 reassurance from you. So I would… my starting point is please try to get them to come to a face-to-face hearing, if possible. If not, then the order of preference, in my view, is video next, and the worst 01:45:02.000 --> 01:45:11.000 possible mode of hearing is telephone. If we have to do it by telephone because that's what someone has opted for 01:45:11.000 --> 01:45:26.000 And it is there. The form, the appeal notice does ask appellants to express their mode of hearing, choice, and so if they ask for telephone, the tribunal has to give them a telephone hearing, at least at the outset 01:45:26.000 --> 01:45:32.000 And so we have to just get on with it by telephone, but it is 01:45:32.000 --> 01:45:35.000 not ideal. 01:45:35.000 --> 01:45:52.000 For the obvious reasons, really, you know, if we can see someone that that's so much better. So definitely I would say worst option is telephone. Slightly better is video, but by far the best in terms of, and I realize that 01:45:52.000 --> 01:46:08.000 when I say it's the best, I'm talking about from my perspective, it's the best. From your client's perspective, actually, attending a face-to-face hearing might be incredibly difficult and challenging, and just not workable. And I appreciate that, but 01:46:08.000 --> 01:46:22.000 And so there will be times where it really has to be remote, but where possible, if they can… I don't know, prepare themselves or psych themselves up, or put things in place that might assist 01:46:22.000 --> 01:46:34.000 it would be preferable if they come face-to-face, and of course they can bring someone with them. So, you know, in addition to the representative, they can bring a family member or friend for moral support 01:46:34.000 --> 01:46:35.000 I think 01:46:35.000 --> 01:46:37.000 Probably that's it. 01:46:37.000 --> 01:46:38.000 From Italy 01:46:38.000 --> 01:46:55.000 I would, yeah, I would agree with that, Noel. And I think it's worth also mentioning that HMCTS is doing a lot of work at the moment to make sure that accessibility is front and center of the venues as well. I know certainly not where we sit, they've done a lot of work to make it more accessible. They've got changing places, bathrooms now, which is amazing. They're looking at 01:46:55.000 --> 01:47:10.000 putting more automated doors into really ensuring that physical accessibility is front and center of these venues. But also, I think actually having that in-person interaction with the appellant can be really helpful, because I don't know about you, but I often find that the appellants often use these 01:47:10.000 --> 01:47:22.000 hearings as almost therapy sessions, and you do get much more out of them when you can build that in-person rapport, so I generally find it a much more effective hearing as well. Fareed, is there anything you wanted to add from your perspective? 01:47:22.000 --> 01:47:48.000 So in Hesk, nearly all our hearings are online by default, so we don't have our own hearing centers and we can manage our list if we didn't list to video. And I think certainly in special educational needs and disability cases that works for our users. So if you're the parent of a disabled child, it's a bit of a no-brainer really, isn't it? It's going to be much easier for you to participate from home by video 01:47:48.000 --> 01:48:03.000 Similarly, school professionals and NHS professionals, much easier for them in terms of managing their other workload and coming and giving evidence. So it works for them, and we need the video hearings in order to get through our caseload as a tribunal 01:48:03.000 --> 01:48:23.000 Personally, I much prefer doing the face-to-face ones and when I do my 30 days year in the family course, I quite like having the opportunity. So in SEND, we would normally only offer a face-to-face hearing if somebody had a need, neurodiversity or some other sorts of needs. We do 01:48:23.000 --> 01:48:46.000 BSL hearings all the time by video. We have a couple of deaf panel members, and we have BSL interpreters who we can use, so normally it's that somebody's asked for one and they need it. So I do prefer face-to-face because of the eye contact, the nuance. I would say if you are advocating online, which you will be in HESC 01:48:46.000 --> 01:49:02.000 appeals for the most part. You just need to be really mindful of looking for cues, because I, as a judge, can't make eye contact with you. You probably can't see if I'm typing or not, because you haven't got the full view, so you can't really see if I've drifted away and you've gone off onto some 01:49:02.000 --> 01:49:23.000 tangent that isn't that relevant. So really, look for cues, definitely don't interrupt. The judge needs to be a lot more structured in online hearings to make it work, and obviously it's a lot more tiring, so I think just be really mindful of how you're behaving and the accessibility for everyone else if you're online. 01:49:23.000 --> 01:49:40.000 Great, thank you. I'm very conscious of time, so I'm going to jump straight into our next topic, which came out through several questions in advance around the use of AI. Now, I think the topic of AI is obviously twofold. On the one side, it's how tribunals and judges and 01:49:40.000 --> 01:49:57.000 Expert members are using AI in preparation for hearings, but also how appellants are using it when they themselves are preparing for their hearings. So, Fareed, if I come to you first in terms of how tribunal judges are using AI, whether you think it's effective 01:49:57.000 --> 01:50:00.000 How you mitigate the risks associated with AI. Do you have any comments on that? 01:50:00.000 --> 01:50:17.000 Yeah, but just a couple of points I wanted to make really quickly, which is as tribunal judges, we are only allowed to use the version of Microsoft Copilot that comes with our judicial software and you need to be really mindful with sensitive information about children 01:50:17.000 --> 01:50:35.000 That you're not using some of the free AI models, which then feed back the information to the AI provider. So anything you use, if you're going to put in sensitive personal information, you need to be really careful about the model that you're using. So just to start with that 01:50:35.000 --> 01:51:03.000 As judges, there's definitely from the senior judiciary, a big steer towards using it, so the senior president of tribunal came to talk to our salaried conference, and he was talking about his use of it, and says he treats it like a judicial assistant. And similarly, I think the master of the roles has just given a speech April 26th about the use of AI, which is worth a look about. And he certainly saw that as a way of which we would manage the workload. So that's the direction of travel 01:51:03.000 --> 01:51:21.000 I know some of my colleagues use a lot more than me. The best use, I think, is to sift through information. So you always need to read the underlying documents and that the guidance is really clear on that, but I've found, say you have an enormous bundle 01:51:21.000 --> 01:51:42.000 You can ask AI to go through that and make a summary of the issues or a discussion prompt for the panel. I find it really misses things, so it's good on pleadings, but you give it a school attendance record, it has no idea what that's supposed to show. It's also really rubbish at law if you give it conflicting cases and say 01:51:42.000 --> 01:52:06.000 What are the principles? It doesn't have any concept of that. So very limited as it is at the now. My main use for it is just a second check with large volumes of information. I know colleagues do use it a lot more than me for assessing whether a case is ready to be heard. Some colleagues use it as a start for writing. I would never use it that way. For me, writing up reasons is part of 01:52:06.000 --> 01:52:13.000 thinking process, and I very much want to take control, because I am the decision maker. 01:52:13.000 --> 01:52:28.000 Great. And Jo, I don't know if AI came up in any of your research in terms of the way that appellants are using it perhaps as an enabler. I mean, I've certainly noticed it that people are using AI more and more, and there are pros and cons to that. Did it come out at all in some of the research you've been undertaking? 01:52:28.000 --> 01:52:47.000 There has to some degree, and particularly with interviewees in the same jurisdiction, as you say, more and more submissions, particularly made by person using AI about sometimes taking the time taken to sort of sift through the reams of AI generated content is difficult 01:52:47.000 --> 01:53:00.000 And certainly sort of directly related to legal aid visits, as you said, pros and cons in terms of it can be empowering and certainly can help people play a role in public legal education and raising legal consciousness. But at the same time 01:53:00.000 --> 01:53:08.000 doesn't quite address the legal age as a problem and can, I think from interviews at least people have been saying, can 01:53:08.000 --> 01:53:17.000 So ramp up people's expectations of what might be possible in a tribunal hearing, or what the grounds of the submissions that they're making. 01:53:17.000 --> 01:53:25.000 And the importance of a rep in terms of managing those expectations sometimes can be helpful. So pros and cons here 01:53:25.000 --> 01:53:42.000 Absolutely. Noel, is there anything you wanted to add either on the greater use of AI in terms of is that a reflection of current unmet advice needs or more broadly, how you found dealing with hearings when appellants do submit AI written submissions? 01:53:42.000 --> 01:53:58.000 So, yeah, I kind of agree with everything that's been said so far. My only… the only other thing that I would say is that I have a lot of sympathy with appellants who are unrepresented, in what can feel like quite overwhelming and intimidating proceedings, even though 01:53:58.000 --> 01:54:15.000 how best not to be intimidating, and I think we do a good job of that, but that doesn't stop someone from feeling a certain way, because they've yet to come and experience that actually it's not this really scary thing that they've built up in their mind. And so, in that context, I, you know, someone who's unrepresented 01:54:15.000 --> 01:54:28.000 will reach out and use all resources that are available to them to try to help themselves. And now we have AI. It stands to reason that appendix will use AI to try to 01:54:28.000 --> 01:54:43.000 prepare for their appeal. The difficulty that I have with it is that you can often tell very quickly when a written document or submission has been prepared by a litigant in person using AI 01:54:43.000 --> 01:54:58.000 in a disability benefit appeal. And again, sometimes we get these extremely long 20, 25 page submissions, rehearsing a whole lot of stuff that we already know, and there isn't at all specific 01:54:58.000 --> 01:55:18.000 to that particular appellant's appeal, their health conditions, and how they're affected by their health conditions and the functional limitations. So, sometimes it's… I find it quite frustrating and it would almost be better if we didn't have the AI submission just come to the tribunal, talk to us, let us ask questions 01:55:18.000 --> 01:55:45.000 You tell us what you want to say, and we'll make a decision. And I think that sometimes I just wish we didn't have the AI 40 pages, which we have to read because it's in the bundle. We can't ignore it. We have to give it some consideration, but often that has just made our life a little bit more 01:55:45.000 --> 01:55:46.000 Yeah. 01:55:46.000 --> 01:55:48.000 harder, and I don't know realistically whether it served the appellant at all, actually. So, but yeah, there's obviously mixed experiences. That's one perspective 01:55:48.000 --> 01:56:09.000 And it's early days. Everyone's still getting the hang of AI and there's so many legal AI tools that are coming out now. So I think we could have a much broader conversation that would take at least an hour as we keep trialing and testing new methods. So we have a minute left. We do have a question in the Q&A that I is directed at Farida and Noel, if you can give me a 30-second response to this 01:56:09.000 --> 01:56:27.000 It's how do you balance reasonable adjustments requests and the equal treatment benchbook provision requests at a time when resources are stretched and emotions can be high. And then the second question asks, can you say a bit more about how litigants in person can be helpful when making submissions? 01:56:27.000 --> 01:56:28.000 Should I go first 01:56:28.000 --> 01:56:29.000 Go for it. 01:56:29.000 --> 01:56:51.000 Okay, on reasonable adjustments, we're a disability tribunal and we do absolutely everything we can to accommodate them. If we can do it and keep to the time and be fair, we will do it. I would say if you want to ask for reasonable adjustments, equal treatment bench book is a great start. There are some things we can't do, we can't guarantee a particular courtroom. 01:56:51.000 --> 01:57:10.000 can sometimes, if you need it, have a longer hearing. There are lots of things like questions in advance, so I think on the whole, we do okay on that. Maybe some of our users would disagree, and obviously we have a lot of specialists, people like speech and language therapists, occupational therapists on our tribunal who can help with that 01:57:10.000 --> 01:57:27.000 In terms of making submissions, I really agree with what Noel said about AI. Sometimes you've lost somebody's voice if they've gone into AI. So it'd be really good. Quite often we will tell you, tell us about this, and then just answer the question, tell us your experience 01:57:27.000 --> 01:57:45.000 And why you're here at the tribunal, and that is going to be the most helpful to us. I always say to litigants in person, if the local authority has gone first, they've said lots of law. You don't need to do that, just tell us what you want us to know when we go away and take our decision 01:57:45.000 --> 01:58:03.000 Thank you. I'm very conscious we've gone to 401, so I'm going to pause the conversation there and thank everyone so much for their contributions. I think it's been a really insightful conversation and definitely some core themes coming out of this around what makes successful advocacy. So thank you all for your time. And Nicole, thank you very much. Back to you 01:58:03.000 --> 01:58:26.000 Thank you so much, Mili, and thank you so much to all the speakers for a very, very insightful, and we had so many great tips. I just want to mention the session is recorded and will be shared with you today or by tomorrow morning, the latest, so you will receive a recording of this, and if you are joining the session tomorrow, you should receive the joining links. And if you're attending the session 01:58:26.000 --> 01:58:36.000 Next week, the journey links will be sent to you tomorrow and on Friday. So thanks again to all the speakers. I hope you enjoy the session yourself 01:58:36.000 --> 01:58:43.000 And hope everybody has a nice evening. 01:58:43.000 --> 01:58:44.000 Thank you! 01:58:44.000 --> 01:58:47.000 Thanks very much. 01:58:47.000 --> 01:58:53.000 See you, see you, Emma!