Fee Remission Reality for Claimants

Fee Remission Reality for Claimants

 

The employment press has been awash with statistics and depressing headlines regarding the new fee regime and what it means for the industry. Employers generally love the new fee system, it has vastly reduced the number of claims and HR departments are breathing slightly easier.

 

As someone who acts for both Respondents and Claimants I can see the positive side of having a fee regime and the need to deter spurious and vexatious claims which are damaging and expensive for employers. However, I am unable to take anything positive out of the current regime and the way it is being implemented.

Fees can be in excess of £1,000 for a Claimant. These fees are incurred when a Claimant is arguably at their most financially vulnerable if they have just lost their job. Mortgage payments, feeding their children and paying for electricity clearly take a priority when someone doesn’t know where their next wage is going to come from.

According to the Government, all is not lost; there is of course the fee remission system. Here is where the real problem lies. High fees would not be an issue if the remission system was fair, organised and efficient. If the fee system itself is not preventing access to justice, the remission system certainly is in some cases.

In my experience, having dealt with a number of remission applications it is frustrating, unrealistic and desperately lacking in any insight into the financial viability of the Claimants’ situation. I have had Claimants who are facing eviction, using food banks and do not have enough money to top up their electricity all be rejected for fee remission.

Another case saw a miscommunication between the remission office and the tribunal seeing the case get thrown out for ‘failure to pay the fee’. The case was reinstated; however this was an error which should never have been allowed to happen. Even though the mistake lay within the respective administrative systems, an application had to be made for reinstatement with evidence and reasons.

 

Documentation is key for the remission office. In one case where the Claimant no longer had access to his documents due to relationship breakdown, the remission office refused to use discretion and review a case on its merits, rather than the presence of benefit letters. Even where benefit entries are clear on bank statements, the remission office is resolute on needing the specific documentary evidence.

The fee remission office refuses to acknowledge the difficulties of having documents and letters reproduced by the benefits office or the delays that can be experienced in getting confirmation of entitlement to benefits. When asked what we were expected to do the response was an uncomfortable, ‘we just have to see them’. Often the deadline to produce documents is a mere 5 days, when it can  take weeks for confirmation to come through from the benefits office.

The situation simply cannot carry on. If the fee system is to stay, the remission system needs attention. Claimants who are in genuine financial hardship are not being adequately identified.  If not, we are running the risk of an elitist system where only high earners and those with considerable savings will be able to afford access to justice.

(All views expressed in this article are of the personal views of Elissa Thursfield and are not necessarily shared by Gamlins Law)