Employment Tribunal Office Unresponsive...

SarEl

viktory wrote: »

Shows how fortunate we have been - made the application in August and have a date set for December.

The complexity of the case (simpler cases are often scheduled faster as they are easier to fit in), and geographical region play a big part. In terms of being unresponsive, I'm afraid that is often the case. In reality, deadlines etc are moot until a tribunal is scheduled because cases are rarely thrown out before CMD unless there is no jurisdiction. Even after CMD, ignoring deadlines tends to be played very much loosely (although that doesn't mean that the tribunal doesn't pay attention to it - there is more than one way to skin a cat!). This is because things like rulings such as these tend to be straight into EAT and win or loose at EAT - the timetable will be extended for a very long time waiting for an EAT.

mooks

SarEl wrote: »

The complexity of the case (simpler cases are often scheduled faster as they are easier to fit in), and geographical region play a big part. In terms of being unresponsive, I'm afraid that is often the case. In reality, deadlines etc are moot until a tribunal is scheduled because cases are rarely thrown out before CMD unless there is no jurisdiction. Even after CMD, ignoring deadlines tends to be played very much loosely (although that doesn't mean that the tribunal doesn't pay attention to it - there is more than one way to skin a cat!). This is because things like rulings such as these tend to be straight into EAT and win or loose at EAT - the timetable will be extended for a very long time waiting for an EAT.

Thanks for this - as difficult as it is to accept that this won't be over anytime soon, at least I know now that my case isn't necessarily unusual and more importantly, that I'm not actually just being ignored.

The case isn't necessarily complex, but I was a relatively high earner, and so my statement of loss is higher than most - and of course, the Respondent is putting as many obstacles as they can in the way - something I'd say was evidenced by their continuous attempts to delay or failure to respond, as opposed to actually addressing or trying to undermine the case itself...

SarEl

Look on the bright side - you really don't want to risk having to go to an EAT! They are far worse, take even longer to schedule, and are very hard going without a lawyer (almost impossible)! The best startegy is to ignore anything and everything that the employers plays about with - just keep putting in writing what they don't do and ignore the rest and don't get stressed. This stage is a game of chicken - he who blinks first usually settles. So the trick is for it not to be you that blinks

mooks

Again, thank you for that - it definitely helps.

While the Respondent is being obstructive, am I wrong to expect at least some contact or response from the tribunal office themselves? After nine letters I'd expect at least a holding letter, but having no response at all is just plain scary. My letters are being signed for and I get the automated e-mail acknowledgement when I send electronically but they literally do nothing else.

I saw on their charter they aim to respond to 95% of letters within 10 working days, which is why I'm starting to convince myself something's happened but I simply don't know it...

greendollar

Ha Ha , abit like the Employment Tribunal Services aim to hear claims within 26 weeks , waiting over 2 yrs is just not acceptable......the service is atrocious , employers and their solicitors just take the pi$$ out of them .

mooks

greendollar wrote: »

Ha Ha , abit like the Employment Tribunal Services aim to hear claims within 26 weeks , waiting over 2 yrs is just not acceptable......the service is atrocious , employers and their solicitors just take the pi$$ out of them .

I saw that one too - it'd be funny if it wasn't so serious...

What I don't understand is why the service itself seems to be such a soft touch. Say you're applying for a job - if you miss the deadline, unless you have a *very* good reason for missing it, then that's it. Why not the same with an ET?

It would more than likely reduce their claims backlog as well - weed out the chancers who sit in the system for years as well as the employers who are trying to hold things up as much as they can. Miss a deadline? Default judgement. Fail to present evidence? Default judgement. Fail to provide a reasonable justification for rearranging a hearing? Default judgement.

Having read case studies where a response was thrown out for being received something like 3 seconds too late, I don't understand how the same doesn't apply (in my case) to the Respondent failing to present a full bundle of documents four months after the deadline - and trying to excuse it by saying 'yes we're a little behind schedule, but it'll all be fine by the time this gets to a hearing'.

SarEl

greendollar wrote: »

Ha Ha , abit like the Employment Tribunal Services aim to hear claims within 26 weeks , waiting over 2 yrs is just not acceptable......the service is atrocious , employers and their solicitors just take the pi$$ out of them .

I entirely sympathise. But if you (and others like you) want to have someone to write letters to - try your MP's ! Seriously - I am not being flippant. The Tribunal Service is struggling to hear ever increasing claims, which are becoming more and more complex (because of legal changes). There are a limited nunber of judges, a limited number of courts, and a limited number of people attached to support the admin of the courts. Remember - tribunal judges, in the main, are "fee-paid". In other words, they are part-time workers! They have to sit for at least 15 days per year (just three weeks) and whilst many do sit for consdiderably more, they all have "real jobs" to do, and most have employers who would rather like them to turn up to work The number of "salaried judges" is actually very few - and mostly confined to some of those that act as Chairs of Tribunal. And the vast majority of the others very probably could and would command higher "salaries" staying at work - so in a sense they are "volunteers".

The fact that a very heavily demanded public service is stretched beyond capacity is the fault of the government - and the only way I expect that to change will be if this government does as it says it will, and strips out protective laws in order to reduce the "burden" on employers. But then you won't have to wait two years for a claim to be heard - because they'll just remove your right to make one!

But I suppose there will be some around here who will applaud both the removal of "burdens" (like treating your employees fairly and equitably, and keeping them safe, and paying them) on employers, to say nothing of being pleased to see massive cuts in this public sector service and the people it employs. As I have pointed out elsewhere - some posters need to be careful what the wish for, because they may get it. But I digress...

SarEl

mooks wrote: »

What I don't understand is why the service itself seems to be such a soft touch. Say you're applying for a job - if you miss the deadline, unless you have a *very* good reason for missing it, then that's it. Why not the same with an ET?
.

Because they have no powers to do so. Ruling out evidence in a live case because it is supplied later than a deadline, especially where there isn't even a hearing due, will simply result in a claim to EAT. Which takes even longer. The issue is not the tribunals - it's the law. As I said before, it's the law that requires changing to support tribunals to do their work.

Yockie

Hi mooks,

I can sympathise with you situation – like yourself, I claimed to the ET in 2008 (June) and am still waiting for the hearing to commence. As I am self-representing, it’s been a postponement after postponement – ALL because of the Respondent’s desires. What I am now wondering is whether – when the hearing takes place – it will under the new Equality Act (as it came into force on Friday), or it will be carried out according to the previous legislations (the one valid at the time of claiming)? Thinking about it logically, it ought to be the laws of the new Act that are used during ET hearings from now on, because that’s when the hearing is taking place – like, for example, if the MOT laws were to be changed, when we go to have it carried out, it is by the new laws, even though the car was purchased before. But, I know logic isn’t the ET's main quality – so what do you think?

Please, if anyone, can give me some advice, I will highly appreciate that – thank you. :money:

zzzLazyDaisy

Yockie wrote: »

What I am now wondering is whether – when the hearing takes place – it will under the new Equality Act (as it came into force on Friday), or it will be carried out according to the previous legislations (the one valid at the time of claiming)? . :money:

The tribunal will apply the law as it was at the time you made the claim.

http://www.equalities.gov.uk/equality_act_2010/equality_act_2010_transitiona.aspx