Since Kester Disability Rights (KDR) started in 2017 the fees percentage has always been 25%.  We are having to put it up to 30%.  This is because we do not make enough money at 25% to pay staff anything like a decent wage.  The director works less than the minimum wage because company directors are one of the few exemptions from minimum wage requirements.  Other staff are also paid far less than their levels of skills and commitment deserve.  This is not sustainable. 

The service is still entirely no win no fee.  There are no hidden extras whatsoever.  So in the rare event of us losing a case, the cost is entirely borne by us.  And if we win you still get over two thirds of the winnings, that you probably wouldn't have got without us, which is why you came to us in the first place!

Some cases have very little, or even no, money in them, and even for those the deal is exactly the same. 

Fee charging remains the only way to fund the service as there are no other realistic and sustainable sources of funding available for advice work.  This funding model also guarantees our independence.  As a limited company we also escape the bureaucracy and unhealthy influences that can permeate registered charities.

Please note that the increase only affects new customers.  Anyone who has signed an agreement for 25% of course remains at 25%. 

During the COVID-19 situation, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) softened its approach to claimants with awards extensions and paper-based reviews becoming common.

This followed a relatively more progressive direction being taken even before then with increased instances of standard processes being adjusted where people couldn’t cope with them. For example, we have had over 20 cases where medical evidence showed the claimant could not deal with personal assessment and so a paper-based review was carried out instead.

This can be a matter of life and death as in some extreme cases claimants have died where they have been unable to cope with the DWP’s benefits reassessment processes. For example: https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/vigil-held-errol-graham-who-3816299 .

It is therefore concerning that the DWP has been reported as not yet signing an agreement to prevent further benefits deaths. 

 https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/concern-after-dwp-admits-it-has-not-signed-benefit-deaths-legal-agreement/ .

 KDR supports disabled social security claimants to get through the assessment processes and tribunal system ensuring reasonable adjustments are made. 

Sometimes we despair at the state of our legal system when the administration appears chaotic and judges appear to have arrived in a time machine. 

A recent Scottish Employment Tribunal case was one of the worse ever seen.  Despite medical evidence showing it was not safe for the Claimant to be questioned about his condition by a barrister due to serious long term mental illness that had previously resulted in multiple suicide attempts, his case was struck out precisely because he couldn't attend a hearing to take the witness stand.  The matter was made even more disturbing by the origin of the Claimant's mental health difficulties being him having been abused as a child.

And in the author's 25 year history of advice work, he was dumbfounded when a transcript of the hearing striking out the Claimant's case was denied with the President himself intervening to state in no uncertain terms we couldn't have one.  An appeal proved fruitless as the ranks closed.  

On the upside, the matter was pursued to the Ministry of Justice with the kind help of the Claimant's MP.  The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice replied to him stating,

"HMCTS always try to identify any party who is vulnerable at the earliest stage of proceedings. This is to ensure all users can access the justice system without being disadvantaged. This can be done on tribunal forms ET1 or ET3, or by another means of communication to the tribunal. HMCTS does everything possible to support users to participate fully in their case and will offer reasonable adjustments where possible. Any adjustments made to how proceedings are conducted will be a decision made by the judiciary".

And,

"I am aware that Litigants in Person may find the tribunal process more challenging and it is important that our judges are appropriately trained to handle these types of cases. This includes cases where a party is both a Litigant in Person and has mental or physical disabilities. Training for judges on handling Litigants in Person is provided in all jurisdictions, and in cross-jurisdictional training, including the Faculty Induction Seminar that new judges are expected to attend within their first year of office".

So hopefully new judges will be better trained than the old ones!

After a five year battle we eventually got the Parliamentary Ombudsman to recommend compensation and changes to DWP practices regarding benefits sanctions.

We worked with Rebecca Long-Bailey MP who referred the case to the Ombudsman.  Incredibly the case was rejected and then the DWP was uncooperative making it KDR's longest running ever case.

The complainant was a severely disabled widow.  Her entire income was removed when accidentally missing a Jobcentre Plus appointment having being wrongly found fit for work. 

This was during a very dark period in DWP history when staff were instructed to sanction claimants with targets widely believed to have been in place.  It is appreciated sanctions still happen, but it is not on the scale it was back in the days when Iain Duncan Smith was Secretary of State. 

KDR's client was severely injured by the destitution inflicted upon her, but thankfully recovered - many victims didn't and some were even killed.  Hence we were relieved to get recommendations made by the Ombudsman to hopefully ensure the sanctions regime cannot be used against disabled people in the future.  The DWP eventually agreed to the recommendations.

Here is the report.  The reason for the delay in getting it on here is we've been swamped with face coverings cases!

Our main work prior to January 2021 was PIP when suddenly we were hit with a tsunami of face coverings cases. These should be simple disability discrimination claims but law firms advertise to organisations that they will deal with the claims for them on a commericial (for profit) basis. Their tactics are typically to seek to grind claimants down by spinning the claims out as long as possible and making threats of costs along the way.

We referred many cases to Fry Law who went bankrupt showing the lack of money in disability work. Thus we have a situation where large corporate law firms represent the offenders whereas the victims suffer more injustice with no remotely user-friendly route to get justice being available.

As a tiny limited company (2 full time staff and 3 part time) we could not cope with the massive increase in work. Some customers got angry with us when we couldn’t meet their expectations. Others became disillusioned that justice seemed ever further away. For many the intimidatory tactics adopted by defendants caused them to have to give up to protect their health.

Only a tiny fraction of cases (11) were settled informally with most still ongoing having been referred to other firms when Fry Law went bankrupt. An even greater number fell through the cracks where there was just no capacity to take them forward and / or the prospects of success were very limited.

Given all the above it will come as no surprise that we are continuing to have to say that we are unable to assist with all but the most extreme cases. These are where disabled people’s health is put at risk where they cannot wear face coverings and organisations refuse to accept that they must treat people unable to wear a face covering due to disability the same as those fortunate enough to be able to wear face coverings. Our previous news item has self-help resources.

As a company we are prioritising PIP as this is needed to prevent poverty and deprivation that are damaging to health.