Scott-Moncrieff: Chaired working party
An increase in delays in the administrative justice system, caused partly by a huge rise in caseloads for certain tribunals, has had a “profound and often compounding” impact on users, a report has warned.
The Administrative Justice Council (AJC), which advises the government and judiciary on the system, said that “by far the most efficient and cost-effective way of removing barriers to justice” would be to get administrative decisions right first time.
Government figures for the first quarter of this year showed that the tribunal system as a whole had an open caseload of 745,000, up by 14% on the year before.
In the First-tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber (IAC), the average time to disposal for the last quarter of 2024-25 was 50 weeks, up seven weeks on the same period in the year before.
The AJC said this had a “profound and often compounding effect” on claimants and appellants, which was “particularly acute where appellants are already at a disadvantage”.
Respondents to a call for evidence highlighted that “long waiting times” – especially at the social security and child support tribunal, the IAC and the special educational needs and disability tribunal – “exacerbate the stress, anxiety and financial hardship faced by appellants”.
As a result, respondents reported “deteriorating mental health of those left waiting and, in some cases, disengagement from the process”.
In its report, Addressing disadvantage in the administrative justice system [1], an AJC working party chaired by former Law Society president Lucy Scott-Moncrieff said people’s first contact with the system was after receiving “an incorrect, or potentially incorrect, initial decision” from a government department or local authority.
“By far the most efficient and cost-effective way of removing barriers to justice would be to improve the quality of administrative decision-making so that the need for a challenge in order to secure justice does not arise in the first place.
“Poor administrative decision-making can significantly drive up the cost of legal advice and services due to increased demand for legal aid and potential challenges to those decisions.
“This can create a vicious cycle where inadequate initial decisions lead to more complex and costly legal processes, ultimately burdening the legal aid system and potentially hindering access to justice.”
One way to improve this was the creation of “effective feedback tools for service users and their representatives” so that initial decision makers could be better informed about the consequences of their incorrect decisions and subsequent cost to claimants and other public services.
The AJC made 11 recommendations in all, incluidng the creation of a public services ombudsman for England to address the complexity and inefficiency in the current network of ombudsman schemes.
The new service would “drive systemic improvements to public services and help to restore public trust and the belief that failures will be put right”.
Legal advice services should be “embedded in community settings, with an emphasis on local advice provision”, as successfully demonstrated by health justice partnerships.
The Ministry of Justice should increase funding and service provision for the advice sector “to support individuals unable to access digital information and digital services” and the previous government’s plans to widen legal aid eligibility should be introduced immediately.
Lord Justice Dingemans, Senior President of Tribunals and chair of the AJC, commented: “This report highlights the ongoing challenges within the administrative justice system and offers practical solutions to address them.
“The system is vast and complex, with hundreds of thousands of people relying on it each year to resolve disputes – from social security decisions to special educational needs provision.
“The barriers identified underscore the need for organisations across the system to work together to ensure it is truly effective.
“Improving public understanding of how, where, and when to seek redress, and ensuring resources are in place to assist them, is fundamental to upholding the rule of law.”