Charging Fees in Employment Tribunals and the ... - Ministry of Justice

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Charging Fees in Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal Summary ofresponses143. The civil courts remissions system discounts any income from disabilitybenefits (such as severe disablement allowance, disability living allowance andcarer’s allowance) when assessing income for the purposes of remissions 2and 3 15 . Therefore we believe that the increased financial burdens arising fromdisability are taken into account and the impacts will not be greater.144. We believe there are advantages to maintaining a consistent remissionsscheme consistent with that used in the civil courts. Advantages arise for userswho will only need to understand and undergo a single remissions test whetherthey are dealing with the civil and family courts or the employment tribunal.This is particularly so given that some disputes can be determined by either thecounty court or in an employment tribunal. Any differences could lead tosuggestions that access to justice was compromised for court or tribunal users.In addition, there are administrative advantages. Court and tribunal staff onlyneed to be trained on one remissions approach and changes to the remissionscheme only need to be considered and made once. A simple system alsomeans lower fees.145. The remission proposals from the consultation are, therefore, maintained atthis stage. However, given the concerns raised by respondents to thisconsultation and more widely, MoJ will undertake a review of remissions aspart of a wider review required for the introduction of Universal Credit.146. The current HMCTS remissions system is based upon the applicant’s ability topay the fee and not the level of fees or the type of application, claim or appeal.The review will aim to produce a single remissions system for courts andtribunals which is simpler to use, more cost efficient and better targeted toensure that those who can afford to pay fees do so, while continuing to provideaccess to the courts and tribunal system to those who cannot.147. A public consultation will be published in the latter part of 2012 andrespondents will be able to provide further responses regarding their concernsas part of the consultation process.A8. Multiple claims148. For multiple claims the consultation proposed that as every person within amultiple claim ultimately gains the same benefit as an individual bringing asingle claim, it is appropriate that all claimants in multiple claims should pay areasonable contribution to meeting the cost of providing the service.149. Whilst multiple claims provide operational efficiencies (e.g. it is cheaper to dealwith 20 cases as a part of a multiple claim than to deal with each as a singleclaim) our case modelling suggests that they cost more than a single claim. We15 Excluded benefits for the purposes of calculating income under remissions 2 and 3 are outlined at page 7 ofthe EX160 “Court Fees – Do I Have To Pay Them?” leaflet, found here:http://hmctscourtfinder.justice.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex160a-eng.pdf36
Charging Fees in Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal Summary ofresponsestherefore proposed to charge higher fees for multiples claims than for singlesbased upon the numbers of claimants within the multiple claim namely that:2 and 4 individuals pay a fee of 2 x the fee for single claims;5 and 10 individuals pay a fee of 3 x the fee for single claims;11 and 50 individuals pay a fee of 4 x the fee for single claims;51 and 200 individuals pay a fee of 5 x the fee for single claims; and201 or more individuals pay a fee of 6 x the fee for single claims.150. We proposed the use of the HMCTS remissions being available for those inmultiples.151. Proposals for multiple bandings cut across both Options 1 and 2 with a finaldecision affecting both. As such, responses to the following questions are dealtwith under this heading.Question 12 – Do you agree with the fee proposals for multiple claims underOption 1? If not, please explain why.Question 25 – Do you agree with our proposals for multiple claims underOption 2? Please give reasons for your answer152. Of the 90 people who responded to question 12, around two thirds disagreedwith the proposal or some aspect of it. A similar proportion disagreed with theOption 2 proposals (question 25). The approach was commonly criticised astoo complicated and that the proposals didn’t acknowledge that each individualreceived different awards. Practical issues were raised such as who would paywhen claimants were represented by more than one representative or not atall. In addition respondents thought that:Unions/representatives should not be expected to pay the fee;The banding was not fairly distributed;The failure of one person to pay must not prevent others fromproceeding;A flat rate fee across claimants including those in multiples would bemore appropriate.The proposals fail to recognise the fluid nature of multiples with the totalnumber of cases contained within a multiple at any one time possiblybeing different from another.On occasions where a claim leaving or joining a multiple results in thecase falling into a different payment bracket, respondents ask if a topupor refund might be expected in those circumstances.37
Page 1: Charging Fees in EmploymentTribunal
Page 5: About this consultationTo:This cons
Page 8 and 9: Charging Fees in Employment Tribuna
Page 86: © Crown copyright 2012Produced by

Charging Fees in Employment Tribunals and the ... - Ministry of Justice

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?