The appeal of internal review : law, administrative justice, and the (non- ) emergence of disputes

"Why do most welfare applicants fail to challenge adverse decisions despite a continuing sense of need?" "The book addresses this severely under-researched and under-theorised question. Using English homelessness law as their case study, the authors explore why homeless applicants did - but more often did not - challenge adverse decisions by seeking internal administrative review. They draw out from their data a list of the barriers to the take up of grievance rights. Further by combining extensive interview data from aggrieved homeless applicants with ethnographic data about bureaucratic decision-making, they are able to situate these barriers within the dynamics of the citizen-bureaucracy relationship. Additionally they point to other contexts which inform applicants decisions about whether to request an internal review. Drawing on a diverse literature - risk, trust, audit, legal consciousness, and complaints - the authors lay the foundations for our understanding of the (non-)emergence of administrative disputes."--BOOK JACKET Half Title Page 1 Half Title verso 2 Title Page 3 Title verso 4 Preface 5 Contents 7 List of Tables 11 1. Introduction 13 (NON-)EMERGENCE OF DISPUTES IN WELFARE 14 METHODS 19 STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK 29 2. Homelessness Law and Internal Review in Context 31 SOCIAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT OF ENGLISH HOMELESSNESS LAW 31 THE LEGAL PROVISIONS 36 THE USE OF INTERNAL REVIEW 42 CONCLUSION 49 3. Southfield Council 51 INTRODUCTION 51 ASSESSMENTS DECISION-MAKING 51 ALLOCATIONS DECISION-MAKING 73 INTERNAL REVIEW 79 RIGHT TO REVIEW – HOUSING ACT 1996 S.202 87 CONCLUSION 89 4. Brisford Council 91 INTRODUCTION 91 ASSESSMENTS DECISION-MAKING 91 ALLOCATIONS DECISION-MAKING 104 INTERNAL REVIEW 111 CONCLUSION 122 5. Understanding the Failure to Pursue Internal Review 123 INTRODUCTION 123 IGNORANCE OF THE RIGHT TO INTERNAL REVIEW 124 INTERNAL REVIEW SCEPTICISM 130 RULE-BOUND IMAGE OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS 143 APPLICANT FATIGUE 150 ‘SATISFACTION’ WITH DECISION 153 APPLICANT DOES NOT WANT/NEED SUBSTANTIVE BENEFIT 157 CONCLUSION 160 6. Understanding the Pursuit of Internal Review 163 INTRODUCTION 163 AIMS AND MOTIVATION IN PURSUING INTERNAL REVIEW 164 GROUNDS OF REVIEW 170 CONFIDENCE AND SCEPTICISM IN PURSUING INTERNAL REVIEW 181 CONCLUSION 185 7. Lawyers and Other Coping Strategies 189 INTRODUCTION 189 ALTERNATIVE COPING STRATEGIES 192 WHY AND HOW DID APPLICANTS ACCESS/FAIL TOACCESS LEGAL ASSISTANCE? 196 THE EFFECT OF LEGAL REPRESENTATION ON THE PRACTICES OF INTERNAL REVIEW 204 CONCLUSION 209 8. Conclusion 211 INTRODUCTION 211 DECISION-MAKING IN SOUTHFIELD AND BRISFORD 211 EXPLAINING AND PREDICTING DISPUTING BEHAVIOUR 214 THE INTERACTION PERSPECTIVE AND POLICY 216 INTERNAL REVIEW AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE 219 THE RESEARCH AGENDA 221 Bibliography 225 Why do most welfare applicants fail to challenge adverse decisions despite a continuing sense of need? The book addresses this severely under-researched and under-theorized question. Using English homelessness law as their case study, the authors explore why homeless applicants did - but more often did not - challenge adverse decisions by seeking internal administrative review. They draw out from their data a list of the barriers to the take up of grievance rights. Further, by combining extensive interview data from aggrieved homeless applicants with ethnographic data about bureaucratic decision-making, they are able to situate these barriers within the dynamics of the citizen-bureaucracy relationship. Additionally, they point to other contexts which inform applicants' decisions about whether to request an internal review. Drawing on a diverse literature - risk, trust, audit, legal consciousness, and complaints - the authors lay the foundations for our understanding of the (non-)emergence of administrative disputes. This book questions why welfare applicants fail to challenge adverse decisions using English homelessness law as a case study.