On the use of forms

Depends on the form. Problems with them can vary.

If it's a word form, sometimes they'll be set up in a way that doesn't allow things like new line characters which makes it awkward to inout text. Other times they're not created as forms but as normal documents. I think whoever created it thought of people printing them out, or just considered what it looks like, not how easy it is to actually fill out. Then when you start typing into it all of the formatting of the document goes wrong. Sometimes I have probably spent as long fixing the formatting as I have completing the form.

For web forms the common problem I encounter is nedlessly mandatory fields. For work I had to do some online training. There were about 25 modules. After every module it would ask you for feedback. Think it was about 5 multiple choice questions and some free text boxes. Every one of them mandatory, and it wouldn't mark the module as complete until you completed them all. I would put off doing modules because of the feedback section. It took a few months to get through the modules between work. Just as I finished them, they re-issued the training to all employees on a different platform. So I've now got to do them all again. Hopefully no mandatory feedback this time.

That's just usability issues with forms. On top of that there's poorly worded questions, or in the case of autism assesment I was sent an outdated form. Luckily I had saved all of my answers. The autism assessment one felt like it was designed to be triggering. I think I even put it as one of the amswers that I struggled with the ambiguity and different sets of instructions I was provided. 

Hairyloon said:

The fundamental issue here is that this is a court of law showing a wanton disregard for the rules, then, rather than admitting they have got things wrong, they have created a new rule and applied it retrospectively to eliminate a complaint.

I've also found this, after 12 years fighting up to High Court. It's the Barristers too - they cross their fingers behind their back and tell all sorts of lies, because they dare not lose, or face losing paid clients. It's an utterly cruel,  barbaric system where there is little chance of Justice.

Latest news is that I have had a letter from the Upper Tribunal asking me to fill in a form for my appeal against the First Tier Tribunal decision that I must use the form...
By coincidents, only moments earlier, I had happened upon the HMCTS video extolling how inclusive they are now...
That's here: www.youtube.com/watch

I've drafted a reply, but not finalised it yet.

The fundamental issue here is that this is a court of law showing a wanton disregard for the rules, then, rather than admitting they have got things wrong, they have created a new rule and applied it retrospectively to eliminate a complaint.
That's pretty shocking behaviour from any organisation, but from an actual court of law it is beyond the pale.

What I think is really disturbing is the lack of resilience: the amount of chaos it has thrown them into just by making an application in accordance with the rules is quite incredible, so I shudder to imagine what might happen if ever they had any serious problems to deal with.

I admire your determination. If you are sure then  stand up and make it hard for them.

If you're right, you're right. They'll obviously not make it easy for you. But if you have the energy, a point of principle should be enough.  

TheCatWoman said:

Good for you, I think this refusal by the Cabinet Office isn't just about the cost of compling the data, but a deliberate attempt at obfuscation and getting away with denying the law.

Very much so. I am quite surprised that the Information Commissioner bought it. I've come to the conclusion that they've got systemic problems: the way they approach the task leaves a lot to be desired. 

Good for you, I think this refusal by the Cabinet Office isn't just about the cost of compling the data, but a deliberate attempt at obfuscation and getting away with denying the law. After all they pretty much seem to be judge and jury, often quite literally! I supose you have to fill in a form to get permission not to fill in a form?

I didn't think you were asking me to write an essay.

TheCatWoman said:

What are you having hassle with the courts about, apart from forms, obviously, if thats not to personal a question?

I'm appealing a number of decisions of the Information Commissioner.
The most significant of which is that the Cabinet Office are entitled to refuse to show us the record of the decision to leave the EU because it would cost too much to look for it.

The others are about the Mayor of West Yorkshire's efforts to pervert the course of justice...

TheCatWoman said:

Outside of academia I doulb tif anyone would read such an essay, they'd just read the introduction and the conclusion and not the main body of the text.

Probably an astute observation, but I wasn't actually asking you to write one.  The point is that under this new rule, you're allowed to apply without a form if you have permission.  They probably don't need a 10,000 word essay, but they might want proof.

If I didn't know better, I might think this new rule was deliberately designed to target people like you, and I can't see how it's compatible with the Equality Act.  I shall put in a complaint.

What are you having hassle with the courts about, apart from forms, obviously, if thats not to personal a question?

Outside of academia I doulb tif anyone would read such an essay, they'd just read the introduction and the conclusion and not the main body of the text.

TheCatWoman said:

If I have to fill in a form I tend to go to pieces and have a panic attack, give me a 10,000 word essay to write and I'm fine, but a form no.

How would you feel about writing an essay about why you shouldn't have to use the form?

Lord Justice Dingemans, the Senior President of Tribunals has created a new rule which requires that the forms must be used unless you have permission not to. It's here: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Practice-Direction-Use-of-Forms-in-the-First-tier-Tribunal-General-Regulatory-Chamber.pdf

There is no know reason for this Practice Direction. I have asked my MP to ask the Lord Chancellor why they approved it.
As far as I can tell, they have done it because of the total mess that they dug themselves into when somebody didn't use the form: it really was a proper pig's ear.  I can tell you all about it if you're interested.

TheCatWoman said:

If fighting for this sort of thing feels right and you have the ability and patience to do it, then go for it.

I'd been finding it quite entertaining, but it had got to the point where I wasn't sure if it was worth the effort. Although it is easier to apply by following the rules, it is easier to fill in the form than to fight about it.
However, if there are people like you, who have real problems (and clearly there are), then that makes it worth doing.

If you want to help, you could write to your MP about the President's Practice Direction.

If I have to fill in a form I tend to go to pieces and have a panic attack, give me a 10,000 word essay to write and I'm fine, but a form no. I think one of the problems with forms, especially benefit forms is that they ask you for the same information in multiple questions and woe betide you if you answer it differently. There is a lack of understanding about how people with any sort of learning difficulty might cope with them, the colours of the forms and the fonts used can be problematic.

There's always an assumption that everybody with a disability will have a helper to do all this stuff for us and generally navigate our way around the system and if you don't have one there seems another assumption, that you can't be disabled if you don't have a helper. At a time when finances are stetched to the point where those who need help to do the real basics like washing and eating are struggling for enough help, do they really think that those of us who need occaisional help with particular things are a priority?

If fighting for this sort of thing feels right and you have the ability and patience to do it, then go for it.

I definitely find forms difficult - I would say more so than your average person. I'm not sure why I find them quite so difficult. But there are definitely always a question or 2 on them that I am not sure what exactly it means and then I feel stuck. I really worry about making mistakes so this probably doesn't help.

Hairyloon said:

the only identifiable reason for using it is because they are obsessively bureaucratic.

I worked in the Civil Service and can confirm that most parts of it have people who would happily make each field on any form contain pages of guidance notes.

Most of the team I managed there had neurodivergent traits and there was beurocracy everywhere because people loved to have rules.

It sounds like you came across some of this in your application.

Autism is without any doubt within the definition of disability as it currently stands under the law. It is down to you though if you consider or disclose yourself to be disabled or autistic. You can be either both or neither depending on who you want to know this.

Iain said:

My approach to this would be to first ask if I had a mandate to do this. i.e. am I assuming that they want it or has someone explicitly asked for it.

I'm just fighting for choice: should people be allowed to apply simply by following the rules, or must they be obliged to wade through 15 pages of paperwork?

I found it a lot easier to apply by following the rules: pretty much all that you need to do is forward the email from the regulator to the court with a note of explanation, whereas, as I said, the form is 15 pages, and the only identifiable reason for using it is because they are obsessively bureaucratic.

It's down to how clear the form or request is. Things like name are ok, but instructions have to be clear or I try to figure out what they mean or intend by the question.

But then I struggle with over thinking all forms and questions, even the aq-50 autism test questions.

I don't do any market survey questions, I annoy the people doing them.

Hairyloon said:

maybe I should carry on the fight for their benefit.

My approach to this would be to first ask if I had a mandate to do this. i.e. am I assuming that they want it or has someone explicitly asked for it.

If there is a mandate then do I have the user requirements to ask for what they really want. Have I gained a consensus for a particular result here or am I assuming again. 

You would probably be best to engage with a charity like NAS to ask their opinion or you may be fighting for something that almost nobody wants and could potentially change things to make it harder for an even larger group.

Once you have these 2 things clear then the decision to fight or not should become a lot clearer.

Just my opinion of course.

Stuart333 said:

I don't find forms easy

Do you find forms easier than providing them with the information that they need, for whatever it is that the form is for?

In my case, I followed the link I was given, saw the rules straight away, found them perfectly straightforward and followed them...
Boy did that cause trouble.

I don't find forms easy. I can't tell if this is more than any one else.

They often ask questions in ways that are ambiguous or misleading. E.g. I wanted to put my number plate on retention, something lots of people do all the time, but had to get someone to help. It'l wasn't me, you're just not supposed to take it all literally.

Sometimes official forms come with explanatory notes.