Guidance

VAPC south west England: meeting minutes 12 December 2022

Updated 10 January 2024

Meeting time

10am

Meeting location

The Rifles, Taunton, Somerset

Attendance

Committee members attending:

Jeff Spencer – A/Chair (JS)
Chris Rose (CRo)
Guy Williams (GW)
Tony Thompson (TT)
Charlie Radclyffe (CRa - SW Secretary)
Philip Orr (PO)
Kieran Bird (KB)
Amanda Brown (AB)
Duncan Tilley (DT – Member and volunteer note-taker for this meeting)

Guests:

Rachael Sargeant, Case Worker (VWS SW Region based in Exeter)

Apologies:

Anica Alvarez Nishio (AAN)
Rachel Brannagan (RB)
Michael Bryan (MB)
Lee Bushby (LB)
Franklin Owusu-Antwi (FOA)
Andrew Ottaway (AO)
Emlyn Phennah (EP)
David Wood (DW)
Abbie Pierce (AP)

Declaration of Interest

While the VAPC-SW Committee recognises the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest, it also recognises benefits drawn from the lived experience of its members. We, therefore, operate a policy of naming and noting any activities or
experiences which could be considered conflicts, while concurrently actively drawing upon the widest experiences of its members to inform its work. At all times we endeavour to clarify explicitly when members are acting on behalf of the committee and when they are acting as private individuals. No conflicts of interest declared.

PO raised the possibility that his new role (JD is yet to be fully confirmed) may raise the possibility of conflicting interests at this or a future meeting. JS directed that it was for PO to bring any such issues to the attention of the meeting to be decided upon on a case-by-case basis).

Minutes

Chair’s introduction and welcome

JS provided an update on national concerns affecting all VAPC regions and what he described as the current level of ‘Statutory Flux’. Committees should keep the right level of attention on sustaining routine activity at the regional level. Still, all Members should be aware of the VAPC Quinquennial Review (QQR) happening now and expected to report in the Spring of 2023. JS thanked SW Members for continuing to persevere in working without even the minimal administrative support from the Sponsor Department. He confirmed that Adverts for vacant Regional Chairs posts, including SW, were being published this month and distracting the admin support staff from routine tasks.

CRo reminded the meeting that it would be possible to co-opt up to 3 people to bring the necessary skills on board, perhaps including professional secretarial support for the SW Committee if a donor organisation had a suitable person available and willing to take on the task.

Minutes of the last meetings and Actions Outstanding not covered elsewhere in the agenda

JS apologised for the late finalisation and very recent distribution to Members of minutes of recent meetings held in June and September. [These were published on the GOV.UK website on 13 December 2022, along with the March 2022 minutes]

CRo reminded the meeting that it had been the intention to have a housing-specific agenda item at this meeting. JS confirmed that this topic would be on the agenda of the first quarterly meeting of 2023.

National Strategy and Communications

AAN had provided initial written feedback from the Nov’ Chairs’ Meeting at Norcross, which she had attended representing JS. JS spoke briefly on this and told the meeting that AAN hoped to join the meeting remotely to give further feedback to Members on this and on the subsequent discussions with Minister and Chairs, including VAPC QQR considerations (this did not happen). Members discussed the ability of Regional Committees to publish on websites to advertise our role and enable veterans and the public to contact committees. The lack of ‘corporate’ email addresses was not seen as helpful in this respect, and JS was asked to provide CRa with the details of the SW VAPC unique email domain which had been set up some time ago.

RS advised that it was not clear how VWS caseworkers were expected to gain visibility for their ‘clients’ of appropriate VAPC representatives to whom the client could be referred with the relevant paperwork the Caseworker had helped them compile. CRa pointed out that some Third Sector organisations that had previously been willing to take on individual clients’ cases had reduced capacity to do so going forward and in some cases, might be tempted to ‘cherry-pick’ simpler cases.

JS and AB provided feedback on the recent NORCROSS induction/continuation training visit, which JS confirmed had been well supported in person by SW Members. AB and others who attended provided feedback using the VetsUK post-meeting evaluation form to the organisers for sharing with their presenters. At the meeting, VetsUK confirmed they would provide VAPCs with the final version of their statistics and guidance of the AFC Duty, as previously agreed. JS confirmed that this material had still not been provided. CRa advised that the issue of a potential COI arising when VAPC Members represent Veterans at Tribunal had again been raised by VetsUK during the training session. RS confirmed that VWS do not attend War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation Chamber (WPAFCC) Tribunals but are experienced in helping veterans prepare their cases and submitting the required documents. Following discussion, it was agreed that the matter would be raised by CRo, who would be attending the next VAPC Chairs meeting in JS’s absence. (see also item below on this topic)

CRa advised that the Central Advisory Committee on Compensation (CACC) have not published their minutes since changing its formal structure in 2015, limiting the ease with which the VAPCs can learn from the CACC’s work, particularly when the VAPCs are not always present at CACC meetings.

JS advised that he will be interviewed by the 2* DEFRA Civil Servant leading the VAPC QQR and will be looking for 2 SW Members to support him. He felt that the QQR Terms of Reference should be read more closely before the interview.

JS is questioning whether VAPCs will be interviewed as part of the separate QQR of VetsUK, as we are a part of VetsUK’s wider responsibilities and have a responsibility to act as a critical friend of VetsUK. It is understood that the Head of Armed Forces and Veterans Services (Hd AFVS) has asked for the date by which the VetsUK QQR will be completed.

CRo noted that there are’ 3 bites at the cherry’ for the VAPC Additional ToRs to be included in the legislation, noting the current SI extends to 2024: The Private Members Bill (Robin Millar’s), the Defence Reform Bill 2024, and the Armed Forces Bill 2025.

DTS (RS)

• RS reported that the VWS is under strain due to personnel and resource issues. Some quite big current projects are now on the back burner. RS described some of the challenges that the VWS and its clients are now contending with.

Actions:

• RS to provide CRo with a list of her concerns to facilitate SW VAPC looking to identify areas where support might be offered

• KB to support VWS with advice on the legal position of Veteran’s Widow/Widower occupying ‘adapted’ LA housing when the Veteran has died

VAPC Role in Tribunals

CRa has been doing great work looking into this topic and advised the meeting that the SI makes it clear that VAPC Members are entitled to make representations on veterans’ behalf regarding War Pension (WP) and Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) matters, which includes at Tribunal. Indeed, the wording is clear that VAPCs shall (not should) assist in any problems regarding WP/AFCS.

However, VAPC Members must be completely transparent about when they are representing a claimant at Tribunal in their capacity as a Member of a VAPC Regional Committee and when they are doing so in a different, private capacity or as a 3rd Party. There have been occasions when this has not been made clear, raising a suspicion that Members might be in danger of misrepresenting the involvement of VAPC in a particular case. Members must ensure that any case they are taking up as a VAPC Member must be brought to the committee’s attention, so that appropriate agreement to the case being taken on is made.

CRa explained that Norcross views complaints as distinct from appeals, with complaints being against VetsUK whilst the respondent in Appeals is the Secretary of State (SoS). For this reason, appeals lodged are not included in statistics on the number of complaints made about VetsUK by Veterans or their dependents. Therefore, it is advised that veterans consider whether to lodge both an appeal and a complaint. However, there are some situations where VetsUK will not consider a complaint whilst an appeal is underway. VetsUK’s new “customer journey maps”, launched in 2022, have a first stage after VetsUK receive an appeal request, during which VetsUK will reconsider whether it made the right decision before progressing with the standard appeal process. This first stage could potentially be a period where a complaint could be considered.

RS pointed out that when VWS are involved with an Appeal, the Caseworker will do all of the pre-appeal preparation before handing the case to a representative who can support the appellant at Tribunal in a way that the Caseworker could not, due to the COI that arises from VWS being an arm of VetsUK who in turn belong to the MoD/SofS

CRa explained that he had undertaken a professionally sourced PIP Appeal/Tribunal Appeal Representative training and wondered whether VetsUK should be arranging for appropriate VAPC Members to attend a similar course.

Action:

• CRa to provide details of the PIP Appeal/Tribunal Appeal Assessor training he undertook

CRa noted that no publicly available database of WP/AFCS Appeal decisions exists. He has begun compiling such a database by scouring the individual published decisions and preciseing each case to record alongside the associated outcomes.

RS advised the meeting that Veterans interacting with the VWS often talk about feeling a lack of support in the system and a general sense of anxiety about what will happen to them at their appeal hearing. Many veterans feel they need to justify/prove everything to a generally sceptical system. RS also identified that all organisations involved in assisting veterans with WP/AFCS matters must try to minimise the need for the veteran to be passed on from organisation to organisation.

SW VAPC Strategic Objectives for 2023

CRo introduced the topic, noting that there needed to be much closer alignment across the 12/13 regions before calling for input from all present. It was agreed that VAPC Chairs must also address this before SW Strategic Objectives are finalised. The meeting separated into groups to discuss the SW VAPC’s potential strategic themes for 2023.

Any other business

A Training Plan for Members as ‘NEDs’ was discussed, and it was felt that it would be helpful for some Members to be nominated to ‘test’ such training before wider uptake was approved.

TT raised the SW Partnership Board, suggesting it needed to be re-energised and encouraged to raise its ambition beyond the funding/deployment/utilisation of a PR mini-bus within the region.

AB suggested that it would be beneficial for Members who are likely to become involved in veterans’ appeals casework and tribunals to sit in on an active case for general awareness of the process and the role(s) members might deliver. AB suggested it would also be beneficial to allow Members to hear the thoughts of a tribunal judge and offered to ‘befriend’ a judge to see how this might be accessible.

TT covered the use of the AFC Assessment Tool by Forces in Mind and suggested it would be important to find out which LAs had co-operated with Forces in Mind and returned a completed Self-Assessment and which had not responded.

Actions:

• TT to talk to the Forces in Mind Trust to obtain their insights
• AO is to be asked to work with MB and DW to seek insights from the Veterans Health Care Alliance VVCHA) perspective