Suggested responses to the consultation

There are seven questions in the consultation which can be answered online here

  1. No, I do not agree with the proposed claimant issue fee of £55, regardless of whether it is an individual paying the fee or multiple claimants. The “simple fee structure” is not simple at all – the current economic climate is in disorder, and people are struggling to make ends meet. The introduction of this fee in these hard times can be seen as unthinking, especially when looking at 2013, where they imposed tribunal fees which resulted in the fall of several cases (54% in 12 months).
  1. No, I do not agree with the level of the proposed EAT appeal fee. As stated before, I think this fee will discourage people from seeking their employment justice, particularly those who are vulnerable and/or with low-income. There is now an added financial aspect to think about, which will add more pressure to an already stressful and probable traumatic experience.
  1. No, I do not fully agree that the proposal adheres to the principles of affordability, proportionality, and simplicity.

The introduction and concept of the fee itself is simple to understand, however, the principles of proportionality and affordability are not met. I believe £55 is too high and that the fee can disproportionately burden vulnerable individuals.

In terms of affordability, not everyone that would have needed the Help with Fees remission scheme would have accessed or used it, or even have knowledge about it – how can a judgement on the EAT and ET fee be made on such questionable grounds? According to the Equality Statement, no external research outside of the scheme was carried out. Regarding proportionality, we are currently in a cost-of-living crisis, making the economy of today much more different to the ones of 2013 and 2018. The data from the 2013 SETA is over 10 years old, and the 2018 SETA is 6 years old – how valid is this data when used to compare today? Similarly, to the Equality Statement, no research was done in inquiring potential claimants.

  1. A higher fee or any new introduction in the ET and EAT fees could further push people away from using the services, thus stopping access to justice, particularly for vulnerable individuals. Instead of increasing fees, focus should be on ensuring equitable access to legal remedies. Furthermore, the services are already paid with taxpayer money, so the organisational structures of the services and those of similar matter will need to be evaluated. It is important to strike a balance between ensuring fair access to the ET and EAT services, and managing the costs associated with it.
  1. Fee exemptions should be made for vulnerable people and those in financial struggle. Cases that are of interest/importance/public highlight can also be considered, as tract is being gained. For example, in a family law proceeding, such as divorce or child custody cases, fee exemptions may be warranted to ensure that individuals have access to justice regardless of their financial means. This is especially important for cases involving claimants at risk who may not have the means to cover substantial legal fees. In cases of discrimination or harassment, or unlawful dismissal, fee exemptions may also be considered to ensure that individuals are not deterred from seeking recourse due to financial barriers. In these instances, fee exemptions can help to promote fairness, accessibility, and the protection of rights for all members of the society.
  1. The affordability, and the potential for a fair outcome are likely significant considerations for claimants when pursuing a claim. The decision is influenced by numerous factors: the nature of the claim, costs, the likelihood of success, time, financial award, and other motivations.

Not only was the service free for most of its existence, with the addition of the cost-of-living crisis, claimants will have to weigh the importance of their actions and lives if the service is to be used. Claimants may also be grieving during the process, or even have trauma from legal processes that can all affect the decision to make an ET claim. The equalities impact does not encapsulate the hardships faced by individuals and groups. Further research is needed to ensure that the fee introductions do not disproportionately affect marginalized communities, and adjustments should be made accordingly to promote fairness and equity in again, accessing legal remedies. It is imperative to consider the financial burden on individuals from different socio-economic backgrounds, the impact on various protected characteristics and accessibility of the legal system. Engaging with those who may be directly affected can provide valuable insights into the specific