Housing Benefit and the appeals service
A hard copy of this report summary can be obtained by contacting Paul Noakes [E-Mail: Paul.Noakes@dwp.gsi.gov.uk] or by writing to him at the 'Social Research Division, Department for Work and Pensions Security, 4th Floor, Adelphi, 1-11 John Adam Street, London WC2N 6HT'.
Research Report No. 129
By Yvette Hartfree, Bruce Stafford and Jenny Beach
This report explores the system that allows Housing Benefit (HB) and Council Tax Benefit (CTB) claimants to challenge the decisions made by Local Authorities (LAs) – known as ‘reviews’. The aims of the research were to identify the level and type of the current review activity, and inform the introduction in July 2001 of the right of appeal against HB/CTB decisions to an appeal tribunal administered by the Appeals Service. The research was based on depth interviews with staff and casepaper analysis in nine local authorities.
The key findings are:
- There are variations in the way LAs deal with reviews. Some have full-time designated officers whilst others fit in reviews around other work.
- The average time taken from request to review board hearing ranged from roughly 12 to 35 weeks, so none of the LAs met the six-week statutory six-week target in the majority of cases.
- The three main reasons for review boards are overpayments, date of entitlement (or backdating) and liability to pay rent.
- Three-fifths of review board cases are from the private rented sector tenants. This is disproportionately high, and is probably explained by the fact there is more discretion in these cases.
- Half (49%) of all hearings were attended by the appellant and a fifth (22%) were attended by a professional representative. In almost a third of cases neither attended.
- The research highlights several areas of best practice for local authorities: the use of designated review officers; a focus on getting benefit assessments correct in the first instance; and the importance of informing appellants about the details they need to supply with their review request.
- There is general support amongst HB managers and review staff for the introduction of the right of appeal to an appeal tribunal.
- LAs need detailed guidance for how the appeals process will work in practice, for example on: the format of submissions, publicity, background to the Appeals Service, and the scheduling of hearings.
1 Introduction
The appeals system allows Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit claimants to challenge the determinations made by local authorities. There are two stages to the appeals process: the first stage, known as an ‘internal review’ is conducted by local authority officers; the second stage, known as a ‘further review’, consists of a hearing conducted by a ‘Review Board’ which comprises local authority Councillors. To bring the appeals system into line with arrangements for decision making and appeals in child support and social security, the second stage of the review process will transfer from local authority Review Boards to the Appeals Service in July 2001.
The Centre for Research in Social Policy was commissioned by the Department of Social Security to conduct a study of current Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit appeals activity in local authorities.
The research involves nine local authority case studies. There were three elements to the research design: depth interviews with Housing Benefit managers and appeals officers (or equivalent); recording of details from cases which went to a Review Board hearing during the period April 1999 and March 2000; and collection of data on the volume of appeals activity. The fieldwork took place in August 2000.
The nine local authorities were selected to provide a range of local authority types, locations and experience of appeals activity.
2 Organisation of appeals
Within the nine case studies a variety of staff structures for dealing with appeals was found. These ranged from local authorities with full-time designated appeals officers for both stages of the appeals process, to authorities with no designated appeals officers. The key difference between the different models of working was the amount of time that staff were able to dedicate to processing appeals cases. In the case studies, without full-time appeals officers, work on appeals had to be fitted around other tasks, which for some authorities was problematic.
There were similarities and differences in how each of the case studies administered appeals. The key differences between the case studies were:
- The extent to which extra information was sought from appellants at the internal review stage - three of the case would sometimes invite appellants for an interview at this stage.
- The extent to which extra information was sought from appellants at the further review stage. This was done to prevent the problem of new information being presented by the appellant at the Review Board hearing, which had the local authority known about beforehand may have enabled them to revise their decision in favour of the appellant. All of the case studies operated an informal second internal review procedure when a request for a further review was received, but at one of the case studies it had been introduced as a formal procedure.
The case studies varied on the extent to which they publicised the appeals system – five out of the nine case studies went beyond their statutory requirements and produced explanatory leaflets.
Some of the case studies were also more proactive than others in encouraging appellants to seek independent advice from welfare rights organisations.
3 Appeals activity
Appeals cases represent a very small proportion of all Housing Benefit claimants. However, the volume of appeals activity in a local authority cannot be accurately predicted solely from the size of the caseload.
Other factors than caseload size can increase or decrease the recorded volume of appeals. These include:
- tenancy type – 60% of the case records were from private tenants;
- changes to the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Regulations could generate appeals;
- local authority initiatives – two of the case studies were chasing up outstanding overpayments;
- publicity and welfare rights organisations could lead to more appeals;
- the quality of the administrative process - minimising errors at the benefits assessment stage, explaining fully to appellants the reasons why their internal review was refused, and ensuring that all the relevant information about a case has been gathered could minimise the number of appeals; and
- how ‘internal review’ appeals are defined – two of the case studies did not include appeals against benefit assessment errors.
Very few cases which are appealed at internal review proceed to a review board hearing. The main reasons for this are appellants succeed at the internal review stage (around 40-50 per cent) or appellants who are unsuccessful at internal review accept the decision. Of those that request a further review not all are taken to a Review Board hearing. There is a ‘whittling’ down process at this point where, for various reasons, the local authority may decide to revise its earlier decision. Five of the case studies considered the cost-effectiveness of taking a case to a Review Board hearing.
The type of appeals cases that were heard at a Review Board were:
- roughly divided between new and renewal claims;
- were predominantly from private tenants (60 per cent); and
- roughly divided between appellants on Income Support/Job Seekers allowance and those not.
Appellants were thought to be more likely to be private tenants because there were more areas of discretion in the assessment of benefits for this group.
The three main reasons why people appealed were: overpayments; date of entitlement (backdating); and contrived tenancies. These areas were considered by respondents to be those where staff had most discretion.
4 Review Board hearings
The scheduling of Review Board hearings was largely determined by caseload size. Case studies with a large number of cases held them more frequently than those with few cases. Apart from one case study, hearings were held in the evening in council committee rooms. On average three Review Board members sat on each hearing. All of the case studies offered Review Board members some form of training, half provided this internally and half used external training providers. Most of the case studies wrote very comprehensive decision letters, which contained detailed accounts of what was said at the hearing and how the Review Board came to their decision.
Half of all Review Board hearings (49 per cent) were attended by the appellant and a fifth of hearings (22 per cent) were attended by a professional representative. However, in almost a third of cases (30 per cent) nobody attended the hearing.
Local authorities won the majority (59 per cent) of Review Board cases. A quarter (23 per cent) were won by the appellant and 17 per cent of hearings were adjourned. The presence of the appellant or a representative at the hearing did not affect the final outcome of the case. Non-attendance of the appellant was the main reason given for adjournments. In turn adjournments contributed to delays and backlogs of cases. As a result three of the case studies took extra measures to find out whether the appellant would be attending. One case study had introduced a policy for appeals to be heard in an appellant’s absence.
5 Meeting time targets
Under the Regulations, local authorities and appellants are given time targets for each stage of the appeals process. Not all of the case studies determined internal reviews within the 14 day time target. The main difficulty with meeting this target was a lack of staff resources, especially at the case studies which did not have designated officers for processing internal review requests.
The case studies also accepted further review requests outside of the four-week time target.
The most problematic time target for local authorities was holding Review Board hearings within six weeks of receiving a further review request. All of the case studies exceeded the time target in the majority of cases, and three of the case studies had not held any Review Board hearings within the six-week time limit. The main difficulty in meeting this time target was the availability of Review Board members for hearings. At three of the case studies this was partly because there was only a small pool of members. Local elections also caused delays because once elected any new Review Board members then had to be trained.
Four of the case studies had a backlog of cases waiting to go to a hearing. Numbers ranged from five to thirty.
The key factors which appeared to influence how quickly Review Board hearings were held were: caseload size, the availability of Councillors and local authority staff structures.
6 The handover
Respondents were aware that the handover would be taking place but were not aware of the details of how the new set-up would work in practice
There was unanimous support for the handover. The main perceived advantages were:
- independence from the local authority – there was thought to be a conflict of interest between being a Councillor and being a Review Board member;
- the Appeals Service Judicial Officers’ knowledge of the Regulations – Review Board members were thought to lack the necessary expertise;
- consistent outcomes within a region and across the country; and
- less work for local authorities because they would not have to organise the hearings.
Only a few minor criticisms of the handover were voiced: a loss of local context to appeals cases; a loss of staff time if not held locally; extra travel costs and time for appellants.
Most respondents thought that, on balance, the handover would not impact on the volume of appeals cases. Although a few respondents thought the handover might either increase or decrease the number of hearings.
Most benefit managers were aware of the Human Rights Act and its broad implications on the appeals process, but they did not intend to stop taking cases to a Review Board, unless they heard otherwise from the Department of Social Security.
There were many areas on which respondents wanted more information about the practicalities of the handover. These included:
- the format of case paper submissions;
- who would take on responsibility for ‘clerking’ hearings;
- the format of submissions – written representations or oral presentations;
- background on the Appeals Service and who would be sitting on the panel;
- how hearings would be scheduled;
- the cut-off date for transfer of cases to the Appeals Service;
- the set-up of hearings under the Appeals Service;
- publicity and who would produce it; and
- a contact point for help and advice with initial teething problems.
7 Conclusions
The research findings found parallels with those of Sainsbury and Eardley’s research on Housing Benefit Reviews in 1990 (Sainsbury and Eardley, 1991). Access to the appeals system through publicity, and the training provided for Review Board members, appeared to have improved since 1990. However, fewer appellants attended hearings in this research than were found to in 1990, and more appeals were made about liability to pay rent issues than were found in 1990.
The research highlights several areas of best practice for local authorities:
- the use of designated appeals officers;
- a focus on getting benefit assessments correct in the first instance; and
- the importance of informing appellants about the details they need to supply with their appeal request.
The handover of Review Board hearings to the Appeals Service also raises several new issues for local authorities:
- a loss of staff time if hearings are held during the day; and
- possible renegotiations of contracts for local authorities where the administration of Housing Benefit has been contracted out to an external contractor.
Current practices and problems found in the case studies raises some issues for the Appeals Service that will need to be addressed:
- adjournments of hearings because of non-attendance of appellants or representatives;
- new information arising at hearings; and
- some local authorities may need assistance with publicising the handover.
The research team believes that, on balance, the Appeals Service could expect to receive the same number of cases as at present, however, changes to the backdating Regulations could cause some fluctuations.
Overall, the hand-over to the Appeals Service was seen as a positive move. However local authorities will, for planning purposes, need detailed guidance on how the hand-over will work in practice.
Publication details
Yvette Hartfree, Bruce Stafford and Jenny Beach (2001) “Housing Benefit and the Appeals Service. ”(DSS Research Report No.129) Leeds: CDS (£26.00)
Relevant publications
Roy Sainsbury and Tony Eardley (1991) “Housing Benefit Reviews” (DSS Research Report No. 3) London: HMSO