Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-b4m5d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-27T20:38:43.492Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Managing Appeals: The Control of Housing Benefit Internal Reviews by Local Authority Officers*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

Tony Eardley  and
Roy Sainsbury
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies of appeals in social security have tended to focus on the structure and performance of tribunals and other appeal bodies. Housing benefit differs from most other social security benefits in having a mandatory ‘internal review’ by officers before a disputed decision can be heard by the review board. The article draws on an evaluation of the housing benefit review system and shows how its two-tier structure has allowed wide variations in practice to develop among local authorities, such that officers can effectively control or manage claimants' access to the formal appeal hearing. We conclude that the existing structure obscures rather than enhances claimants' appeal rights in this area and discuss the possibilities for change.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , October 1993 , pp. 461 - 485
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adler, M., Burns, E and Johnson, R. (1976), ‘The conduct of tribunal hearings’, in Adler, M., and Bradley, A. (1976) (eds.) Justice, Discretion and Poverty, Professional Books, Abindgon.Google Scholar
Baldwin, J., Wikeley, N. and Young, R. (1992), Judging Social Security. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Bell, K. (1975), Research Study on Supplementary Benefit Tribunals. Review of Main Findings: Conclusions: Recommendations, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Bennett, F. (1989). ‘The social fund in context’, in Craig, G. (ed.) Your Flexible Friend? Voluntary Organisations, Claimants and the Social Fund, Social Security Consortium, London.Google Scholar
Blau, P. M. and Schoenherr, R. A. (1971), The Structure of Organisations, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
Bull, D. (1980), ‘The anti-discretion movement in Britain: fact or phantom?’ Journal of Social Welfare Law, 65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrows, L., Phelps, L. and Walentowicz, P. (1993), For Whose Benefit: The Housing Benefit Scheme Reviewed NACAB/Shelter, London.Google Scholar
Clews, N. (1988), ‘Housing Benefit Review Procedures 1983–88’, unpublished MA thesis, Department of Government, Brunel University.Google Scholar
Coleman, R. (1970), Supplementary Benefits and the Administrative Review of Administrative Action, Poverty Pamphlet No. 4, Child Poverty Action Group, London.Google Scholar
Corden, A. (1993), Revisiting Take-up from the ‘Supply Side’: A Literature Review, SPRU Working Paper DSS 1062, University of York, York.Google Scholar
Council on Tribunals (1991), Annual Report, HC 97, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Council on Tribunals (1992), Research Bulletin No. 4, June.Google Scholar
Craig, G. (1990), ‘Watching the social fund’ in Manning, N. and Ungerson, C. (eds.) Social Policy Review 1989–90, Longman, London.Google Scholar
Craig, P. (1991), ‘Costs and Benefits: a review of research on take-up of income-related benefits’, Journal of Social Policy, 20: 4, 537–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalley, G. and Berthoud, R. (1992), Challenging Discretion: The Social Fund Review Procedure, Policy Studies Institute, London.Google Scholar
DHSS (1985), Housing Benefit Review: Report of the Review Team, Cmnd. 9520, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
DSS (1992), Circular HB/CCB (92) 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eardley, T. and Sainsbury, R. (1992), ‘Appealing to common sense on housing benefit reviews’, Roof, 05/06, 10.Google Scholar
Frost, A. and Howard, C. (1977), Representation and Administrative Tribunals, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Genn, H. (1993), ‘Tribunals and informal justice’, Modern Law Review, 56, 3934–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genn, H. and Genn, Y. (1989), The Effectiveness of Representation at Tribunals, Lord Chancellor's Department, London.Google Scholar
Hawkins, K. (1986), ‘On legal decision making’, Washington Law Review, Virginia, 43: 4, 1161–242.Google Scholar
Hill, M. (1969), ‘The exercise of discretion in the national assistance board’, Public Administration, 47, Spring, 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, M. (1972), The Sociology of Public Administration, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.Google Scholar
Hill, M. (1984), ‘The implementation of housing benefit’, Journal of Social Policy, 13: 3, 397–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, M. (1989a), ‘Income maintenance and local government: implementing central control’, Critical Social Policy, 25, Summer, 81–35.Google Scholar
Hill, M. (1989b), The Contribution of the Sociology of Organisation in the Study of Social Science Administration. Paper given to the International Seminar on the Sociology of Social Security, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Howe, L. (1985), ‘The “deserving” and the “undeserving”: practice in an urban local social security office’, Journal of Social Policy, 49–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huby, M. and Dix, G. (1992), Evaluating the Social Fund, Department of Social Security Research Report No. 9, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Jackson, M., Stewart, H. and Bland, R. (1987), ‘Appeal tribunals and Supplementary Benefit’, Social Policy and Administration, 21, 58–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, P. (1992), Housing Benefit: An Appraisal, Social Security Advisory Committee, London.Google Scholar
Kemp, P. (1984), The Cost of Chaos, SHAC Research Report 8, London.Google Scholar
Legal Action Group (1991), ‘Following instincts’ (editorial), Legal Action, 10, p. 3.Google Scholar
Lewis, N. (1973), ‘Supplementary Benefit Appeal Tribunals’, Public Law, Winter, 257–84.Google Scholar
Lipsky, M. (1980), Street Level Bureaucracy, Russell Sage, New York.Google Scholar
Lipsky, M. (1991), ‘The paradox of managing discretionary workers in social welfare policy’, in Adler, et al. (eds.) The Sociology of Social Security, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Loveland, I. (1987), ‘Politics, organisation and environment – influences on the exercise of administrative discretion within the housing benefit scheme’, Journal of Social Welfare Law, 07, 216–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loveland, I. (1988), ‘Housing benefit: administrative law and administrative practice’, Public Administration, 66, Spring, 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luba, J. (1985), ‘Decisions of housing benefit review boards’ (in two parts), Legal Action, 08, 117–19, and September, 133–5.Google Scholar
Malpass, P. (1984), ‘Housing benefits in perspective’, in Jones, K. and Stephenson, K. (eds.) The Yearbook of Social Policy in Britain 1983, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
Mashaw, J. (1983), Bureaucratic Justice, Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
Mullen, T. (1989), ‘The Social Fund: cash-limiting social security’, Modern Law Review, 01, 64–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oglesby, P. (1983), Review of Attendance Allowance and Mobility Allowance Procedures and of Medical Adjudication, DHSS, London.Google Scholar
Partington, M. and Bolderson, H. (1984). Housing Benefit Review Procedures: A Preliminary Analysis, Brunel University Law Department Working Paper.Google Scholar
Prosser, T. (1977), ‘Poverty, ideology and legality: SBATs and their predecessors’, British Journal of Law and Society, 4: 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sainsbury, R. (1992a), ‘Administrative justice: discretion and procedure in social security decision making’, in Hawkins, K. (ed.) The Uses of Discretion, Clarendon, Oxford.Google Scholar
Sainsbury, R. (1992b). Survey and Report into the Working of the Medical Appeal Tribunals, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Sainsbury, R. and Eardley, T. (1991), Housing Benefit Reviews: an evaluation of the effectiveness of the review system in responding to claimants dissatisfied with housing benefit decisions, DSS Research Report 3, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Sainsbury, R. and Eardley, T. (1992), ‘Housing Benefit Review Boards: a case for slum clearance?’ Public Law, Winter, 551–9.Google Scholar
Titmuss, R. M. (1971), ‘Welfare “rights”, law and discretion’, Political Quarterly, 42, p 113–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, P. (1975), Sociology and Social Policy, Allen Lane, London.Google Scholar
Walker, R. and Williams, J. (1986), ‘Housing benefit: some determinants of administrative performance’, Policy and Politics, 14: 3, 309–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, R., Hedges, A. and Massey, S. (1987), Housing Benefit: Discussion about Reforms, Housing Centre Trust, London.Google Scholar
Walker, R., Dix, G. and Huby, M. (1991), ‘How social fund officers make decisions’, in Carter, P., Jeffs, T. and Smith, M. K. (eds.) Social Work and Welfare Yearbook, Open University Press, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Wikeley, N. (1986), ‘Housing Benefit Review Boards: The new slum?’, Civil Justice Quarterly, 5, 18–23.Google Scholar
Wikeley, N. (1992), ‘Disability adjudication and appeals’, Legal Action, 03, 16–18.Google Scholar