AJC latest updates
News
AJC publishes final report on addressing disadvantage in tribunal and ombudsman system, 26 November 2025
The Administrative Justice Council (AJC) has today (Wednesday, November 26) published its final report (PDF) on addressing disadvantage in the administrative justice system (AJS).
The report explores the barriers faced by individuals who experience disadvantage in the AJS due to personal circumstances, characteristics or systemic factors.
It identifies key challenges faced by users and outlines 11 recommendations for the role government, educators, ombudsman schemes, legal advice providers and other stakeholders can play in strengthening the AJS.
The AJS encompasses the procedures, law and systems of many specialist tribunals and ombudsman schemes for resolving disputes in relation to any decision made by an administrative or executive body about a person.
This is a broad remit which covers many decisions which a government body or local authority may make about someone, including social care, special education needs and disability appeals, benefits assessments, immigration and asylum decisions, healthcare and housing.
The report, produced by the AJC’s Addressing Disadvantage Working Group, is structured to follow the lifetime of a dispute, from recognising that a problem is legal through to its final resolution.
Born out of feedback that an increasing number of people were frustrated or distressed when accessing the AJS, the Working Group aims to identify “pinch points” in the system and to propose practical, coordinated solutions to improve outcomes for all users.
To improve initial decision making by central and local government, the Working Group recommends that stakeholder collaborate to create effective feedback tools for service users and their representatives.
This could help decision makers be better informed about the consequences of incorrect decisions and the cost to claimants and other public services, the Working Group suggests.
Chaired by Lucy Scott-Moncrieff CBE, the Working Group also recommends that the existing complexity in the network of ombudsman schemes could be tackled through the creation of a national Public Services Ombudsman for England.
This new Ombudsman could drive systemic improvements to public services and help to restore public trust and belief that failures will be addressed.
Other recommendations include the proposal that parties – claimants and respondents – collaborate to minimise delay and ensure cases are fully prepared by the first hearing.
Speaking about the report, Lord Justice Dingemans, the Senior President of Tribunals and Chair of the Administrative Justice Council said: “This report highlights the ongoing challenges within the administrative justice system and offers practical solutions to address them. The system is vast and complex, with hundreds of thousands of people relying on it each year to resolve disputes – from social security decisions to special educational needs provision. The barriers identified underscore the need for organisations across the system to work together to ensure it is truly effective. Improving public understanding of how, where, and when to seek redress, and ensuring resources are in place to assist them, is fundamental to upholding the Rule of Law.”
Call for evidence on the digital reform of tribunals and addressing disadvantage, 14 January 2025
The Administrative Justice Council (‘AJC’) is calling for evidence on the impact of digital reform of tribunals on users and addressing disadvantage in the administrative justice system.
The call will run until Monday 10 February at 5pm.
Following surveys in 2023, the AJC is seeking further evidence from representatives, advisors, community-based organisations and anyone else who assists individuals in resolving disputes in the administrative justice system to inform two of its working group’s final reports. Both groups hope to make practical recommendations to improve access to justice and the experience of those engaging with the administrative justice system. The AJC is particularly interested in hearing about examples of challenges faced by advisors or clients, any areas of best practice to help people through the system and suggestions for where improvements could be made to assist participants in the administrative justice system.
Please note, Section 1 of the Call for Evidence is to collect evidence on the impact on users of digital reform in tribunals and Section 2 of the Call for Evidence is to collect evidence on the barriers to accessing administrative justice arising from personal circumstances or personal characteristics of people seeking justice. Respondents are free to only answer sections/questions they feel most relevant to them.
You can respond to the Call for Evidence in a number of ways; find out more about how to respond here (external link).
- If you have any questions about the Call for Evidence or your submission, please contact AJC@judiciary.uk
Expressions of interest: Administrative Justice Council Membership, 30 July 2024
The Administrative Justice Council welcomes expressions of interest for a seat on the Council. The Council is a non-statutory oversight body for the administrative justice system throughout the UK, advising government, including the devolved governments, and the judiciary on the development of that system. It aims to promote efficiency, accessibility and fairness in administrative justice, bringing together senior stakeholders from across the access to justice landscape.
Application deadline: Friday 6 September 2024
Find out more information and how to express an interest.
Mental health and the administrative justice system, 15 August 2023
This working group was borne out of feedback from our Advice Sector Panel who reported an increasing number of frustrated and distressed users accessing the administrative justice system. Concerns were also raised about the negative effect such an increase was having on the wellbeing of those working within the system.
The group is chaired by Lucy Scott-Moncrieff and members, drawn from academia, healthcare, and advice organisations, have designed two surveys that seek to ascertain current challenges faced by those seeking to access the system and by those assisting them. The group is also keen to highlight examples of good practice that are particularly useful to this cohort of users and the impact of the cost of living crisis and HMCTS’ modernisation programme will also be considered.
AJC responds to the Joint Committee Inquiry into the creation of a Human Rights Ombudsperson, 20 July 2022
JUSTICE and the Administrative Justice Council (AJC) have responded to the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ inquiry into whether a Human Rights Ombudsperson should be created.
In May 2022, the Joint Committee on Human Rights launched an inquiry into whether a Human Rights Ombudsperson should be created, to improve how people could enforce their rights out of court. The inquiry is to cover whether such a body should be created, the powers of this body, how it would interact with other bodies and the devolved nations, and what other steps could be introduced to ensure people can effectively enforce their rights out of court.
Whilst we were supportive of the need to strengthen the enforcement of human rights other than by court action, and understood the appeal of a Human Rights Ombudsperson, we had practical misgivings about whether this was the best way to support human rights culture in ombudsperson services. This was for a couple of reasons:
- That it would create confusion for the public. There is already a multitude of different ombudspersons in the UK covering a variety of different areas. JUSTICE has previously been supportive of the argument for simplification of ombudsperson services and the creation of a single Public Services Ombudsman for England. The AJC are also in favour of a more efficient, user-friendly and streamlined complaints procedure. We had concerns that a complainant would not necessarily know which ombudsperson service was best to approach with their complaint or that it would create unnecessary confusion if two different complaints went ahead simultaneously.
- That it would undermine a human-rights based approach to existing ombudsperson services. We felt that there was a risk that it would undermine work that urgently needs to be prioritised to create a ‘human rights-based approach’ to existing ombudsperson services. This work has already started, for example in Northern Ireland and Wales. Creating a human-rights based approach to ombudsperson services requires urgent attention in the UK. We are concerned that a Human Rights Ombudsperson would distract from this work and send the wrong signal to existing ombudsperson schemes that they should not make human rights considerations.