Hi, I'm Mrs. Allchin and I'm going to be taking you through the Citizenship lesson today.

I'm going to give you all the information that you need to be able to take part in the lesson and I'll also pause and tell you when you need to complete an activity or complete a check for understanding.

I hope you enjoy the lesson.

This lesson is called "How are rights supported in civil cases?" and it's taken from the unit "Does our legal system protect citizens' rights?" By the end of this lesson, you'll be able to explain how rights are supported both within and outside of the civil courts.

The keywords for today's lesson are civil law, which is law that deals with disputes between individuals or groups.

Civil court, which are courts that deal with civil disputes.

Ombudsman, which is an independent and impartial person who has been appointed to look into complaints about companies and organisations.

And mediation, a resolution-focused negotiation facilitated by an independent third party.

This is our lesson outline for today.

First, we're going to look at, "How are rights supported within civil courts?" And then we're going to look at, "How are rights supported outside of the courts?" So we're gonna start by looking at how rights are supported within civil courts.

So Sam is asking, "What is civil law?" That was one of our keywords, but just pause and see how much you can remember about civil law.

So civil law deals with disputes between civilians, so people, individuals or groups of people, often to do with rights.

Sometimes these disputes may not involve the breaking of the law but they may involve a violation of rights.

So civil law deals with cases that involve a potential violation of rights.

And the purpose of civil law is to resolve disputes between individuals, businesses, or organisations, and provide damages, so a type of compensation, for any harm or loss.

So unlike criminal law, which punishes offenders, civil law focuses on righting a wrong, normally in relation to rights.

So these are the key features of civil law.

So it deals with disputes between people, often relating to rights.

The person or people who is accused is the defendant, so similar to criminal law, whereas the person or people bringing the case is the claimant because they are making the claim.

Civil cases are brought by the person or group who feel that they have been wronged in some way.

The purpose of civil law is to listen to both sides of the argument and reach a decision that ensures that rights have been met and damages are awarded if needed.

And the outcome of civil law is to decide who is at fault, so ultimately, who is right and who is wrong.

If the dispute cannot be resolved between the two parties, the case may go to court to be heard by a judge.

So let's hear what Sam is going to ask.

So Sam is asking, "If civil cases do not involve a law being broken, why do they still require judges and courts?" So pause while you have a think.

So, just because civil law doesn't involve always laws being broken, it still deals with very complex and emotive cases regarding people's rights.

A civil court case may sometimes be needed so that a decision can be made and compensation sought or actions ordered.

It's a huge misconception that civil law is less serious.

Impact of civil cases can be absolutely life-changing for the individuals involved.

So let's have a check for understanding, true or false? Civil law only deals with minor cases, often to do with arguments.

Is that true, is that false, and can you tell me why? And that's false, and why? Civil law may deal with cases that some may view as minor, but it also deals with very complex and emotive cases regarding rights.

Civil law deals with a wide range of cases, including employment issues, divorce, and defamation.

As a result, there are a range of different civil courts, each overseeing a particular type of civil case.

So the most common is county courts, they deal with most civil disputes, including consumer issues, debt claims, breaches of contract and debt recovery.

So courts like this, county courts, they handle cases up to 100,000 pounds, or 50,000 pounds if it's for individual personal injury.

District judges oversee these courts.

So if it's a claim that's potentially going to exceed that, then it will need to go to another court, but most civil cases are heard in a county court.

High courts are overseen by high court civil judges and they handle the more complex and high-value civil cases where the claim could be over 100,000 pounds.

We then have family courts and they deal with cases like divorce and child custody, adoption, and they are overseen by district judges.

We then have tribunals and they handle specific disputes in very sort of specialist areas.

So for example, a common type of tribunal is an employment tribunal, whereas county courts are more broad and cover a much wider variety of civil cases.

Tribunals are less formal than other civil courts and they are overseen by a tribunal judge.

Let's have a check for understanding.

Match the court head to the court tail.

So on the one hand, we've got, "County courts deal with the most civil disputes.

." "High courts handle more complex cases.

." "Family courts deal with cases like.

." "And tribunals handle specific disputes.

." So they're the heads, and then you need to find the correct tail.

So we've got, "Where the claim could be over 100,000 pounds." "Up to 100,000 pounds, or 50,000 pounds for personal injury." "In specialist areas." And, "Divorce, child custody, and adoption." So pause while you have a go at matching the head to the tail.

Let's see how you got on.

So, "County courts deal with most civil disputes, up to 100,000 pounds, or 50,000 pounds for personal injury." "High courts handle more complex cases where the claim could be over 100,000 pounds." "Family courts deal with cases like divorce, child custody, and adoption." Which means, "Tribunals handle specific disputes in specialist areas." There is also a civil division within the court of appeal where cases involving a defendant or claimant believing a legal mistake has been made can be heard.

These are overseen by lord justices of appeal.

So just like within a criminal court, there are appeal courts within civil law as well.

And then we also have the UK Supreme Court, which is the highest civil court in the UK and hears cases of national importance on issues like human rights, constitutional matters, and major legal disputes.

And these are overseen by justices of the Supreme Court.

So Sam is saying, "Wow, sounds like civil courts hear a huge range of cases involving rights, so how does the judge ensure civilians' rights are met during these cases?" So let's have a look at that together.

So just like crown court judges within the criminal system, judges in civil courts must have extensive legal experience before being appointed, because remember, civil law is not less serious law, civil law is still very complex.

So this includes they need to be a qualified solicitor or barrister, they need to have at least five years of legal experience before becoming a judge, and they are appointed through the Judicial Appointments Commission, the JAC.

So just like crown court judges, civil court judges do have extensive legal experience.

So Sam is asking, "What type of evidence is considered in civil courts to ensure that rights are supported on both sides?" So before you pause to have a think about this, remember, with civil courts it's about who is in the right, who is in the wrong, and trying to undo a wrong, often to do with rights.

So what type of evidence do you think would be considered? So within a civil case, documents would be considered as evidence, so things such as contracts, emails, medical records, financial statements.

So for sample, if that was a medical claim, medical records would be examined to find evidence of negligence.

So if somebody's saying that they've gone into hospital and something's happened to them, well, their medical records would be an example of evidence that could be looked at.

Also witness testimonies.

So for example, that could be a statement from someone stating that they had witnessed workplace bullying in an employment tribunal.

So if that was someone that was taking their employer to a tribunal saying that they'd suffered workplace bullying or discrimination, they might actually speak to people that might have witnessed this, so that would be an example of witness testimony which would be used as evidence in a civil case.

Then they would also call upon expert opinions.

So that could be, for example, a civil case, a tribunal, an educational tribunal, regarding a specialist school place for a child with special educational needs.

And the judge might want to hear from teachers and educational psychologists so that they could share their opinion about what they think.

So documents, witness testimonies, and expert opinions would all be considered by the judge as evidence.

And judges must be fair and impartial, using evidence, legal principles, and human right laws to decide cases and ensure that rights are met.

So, unlike criminal cases where the defendant must be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, in civil law, civil judges make their decision based on the balance of probabilities.

So ultimately, they need to be 51% or more sure, so it's vital that evidence is examined carefully.

It's not about deciding someone is guilty, it's about thinking about, on the balance of probabilities, who is more likely in the right? Who is more probable to be correct? So let's have a check for understanding, so there's two parts to this.

First I want you to identify the three types of evidence a judge will consider, and then to state what they must base their decision on, the balance of what? So pause while you have a go at this check for understanding.

So the three types of evidence a judge will consider are documents, witness testimonies, and expert opinion.

And they must base their decision on the balance of probabilities, who is most likely right.

Judges will also apply relevant laws when making their decisions.

So this, again, can be a misconception that civil law is completely devoid of Acts of Parliament, but they will absolutely apply relevant laws when needed to make their decision.

So this includes legislation as well as contract, family, employment, and consumer law.

So for example, if an employee felt that they had been unfair dismissed from work due to becoming pregnant, when looking at that in an employment tribunal, the judge would apply legislation, which in this case would be the Equality Act 2010 with pregnancy being a protective characteristic, so they would use this when making their decision.

And once a case has been heard, the judge will make a decision based on the balance of probabilities and decide on an outcome that aims to award compensation, that forces someone to stop doing something, an injunction, or to confirm legal rights, a declaration.

So that will be a decision that would be made by the judge.

And all of these aim on righting a wrong and ensuring that citizens' rights are supported.

So Sam is asking, "Do you know of any civil cases?" So pause and think, have you heard of any civil cases? Have you heard about any of these in the media? Are you aware of any? So a real life example of a civil case was in 2019 when the Duchess of Sussex made a civil case against The Mail on Sunday newspaper stating that her rights to privacy had been violated when the newspaper got hold of and printed a personal letter that she had written to her father.

The case was heard in a high court and judges decided that the Duchess of Sussex was right, that the letter was private and it was not in the public interest.

Associated Newspapers, which are the owners of The Mail on Sunday, did attempt to have the case appealed at the court of appeal, but this was unsuccessful.

Therefore, The Mail on Sunday had to write an apology and also issue damages, which in this case was monetary compensation.

Another example is between 2011 and 2019, there was the Payment Protection Insurance, PPI, scandal which was a huge civil case where the defendants were made up of major UK banks, so the people that were being taken to civil court, and the claimants, the people making the claim, consisted of millions of UK consumers.

So Sam is saying, "Sounds big.

What is PPI and what does it have to do with rights?" So just pause because this might have got some of your memories going.

Have you heard of PPI or have you heard of the PPI scandal? So PPI is ultimately a financial product.

It's a type of insurance that's designed to cover loan repayments if the borrower can no longer pay.

So for example, if they lost their job.

So if I was taking out any kind of loan, like a credit card or a mortgage, I might have the option to pay additionally and get PPI, and that's a type of insurance that means that if something was to happen and I lost my job, those payments would still be made.

But as with all types of insurance, PPI, it does cost money.

You know, if someone decides that they want to take out that PPI insurance, they do have to pay for that, and this cost is added to that overall loan, so a credit card or a mortgage, so you know, a bit of extra money would be added to that to cover that person's PPI insurance.

So PPI can absolutely be a really sensible and positive thing to have if it's done correctly, and this is where the issue lies.

So Sam is saying, "Sounds sensible.

Why did this turn into a scandal?" Because it is, PPI is a sensible thing to have, but it turned into a scandal because in many cases that PPI was mis-sold.

It was sold to people who were not eligible, so it was sold to people that were self-employed and many self-employed people were simply not eligible, so they were paying this money that was completely pointless.

It was also to some people sold as being mandatory when actually it was optional.

So when people were applying for a credit card, for example, rather than being asked, "Would you like PPI?" They were told, "To take out this credit card, you must take out PPI," which was a lie.

And many people also sold PPI without being provided with really clear explanations of how much that would cost.

And ultimately, this meant that millions of people were paying for unnecessary insurance, they were paying for a product that was completely pointless to them.

So not only did this scandal violate citizens' rights, e.

g.

the right to informed consent, because they weren't being given the right information, but judges were also able to apply legislation to the scandal, so for example, the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which states that financial products must be sold transparently, so they must be clear and honest and transparent.

So this led to the PPI scandal becoming one of the largest consumer right cases in UK history.

Although many banks tried to challenge compensation claims, ultimately, the banks were made to repay any customers that had been mis-sold PPI, and this amounted to 36 billion pounds that needed to be paid out to people that have been mis-sold PPI.

So civil courts work to ensure that citizens can seek support and justice when their rights have been violated.

Civil law helps individuals resolve disputes and seek compensation for harm caused by others.

Even if someone is not guilty of committing a crime, they may still face a civil claim.

Let's have a check for understanding.

What are the missing words? So, "Civil law helps individuals resolve something and seek something for harm caused by others.

Even if someone is not guilty of committing a crime, they may still face a something claim." So pause while you try and work out what those missing words might be.

So, "Civil law helps individuals resolve disputes and seek compensation for harm caused by others.

Even if someone is not guilty of committing a crime, they may still face a civil claim." For Task A, I would like you to justify this statement using your own knowledge and examples from the lesson so far.

So the statement is, "Civil courts play a crucial role in ensuring the rights of citizens are supported." So I want you to really try and back up and justify that statement.

Pause while you have a go at this task.

So, when justifying this statement, that civil courts play a crucial role in ensuring the rights of citizens are supported, you may have included, "Civil courts are important because they protect people's rights by achieving justice for people who have had their rights violated.

They help in cases where someone's privacy, money or property has been affected unfairly.

For example, in the Duchess of Sussex's privacy case, the high court ruled that a newspaper broke her rights by publishing a private letter, proving civil courts defend personal privacy." So that is how rights are supported within the civil court systems. Now we're going to have a look at, "How are rights supported outside of the courts?" So Lucas is asking, "Do all civil cases end up in civil courts?" What do you think? Pause and have a think.

No, they don't.

Unlike criminal cases where the state brings the case against a defendant, civil cases involve a dispute between individuals involving rights.

Therefore, if this dispute can be resolved outside of the courtroom, this is still a valid way of righting the wrong.

And dealing with a civil dispute outside of court actually has many benefits.

It's usually quicker, it's cheaper, and it's likely to be less stressful for all of the parties involved.

So methods that are used to try and sort out these civil cases outside of the courtroom are known as alternative dispute resolution.

So let's have a look at some of the examples of how this can happen.

So an ombudsman is an independent and impartial authority and they're appointed to handle complaints made by individuals against organisations or public bodies.

So they work to support people's rights when they feel they have been treated unfairly or unlawfully.

And there are different types of ombudsman that look at different areas.

So for example, there's the Prison and Probation Ombudsman.

So if somebody felt that their rights had been violated within the Prison and Probation Service, they would be able to provide that independent, impartial advice.

There's a Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman that would do the same for parliamentary and health matters.

And there's also the Financial Services Ombudsman that would support people independently that might have had rights violated in terms of money.

And they support rights by providing fairness and impartiality, consumer rights protection and access to justice.

So Lucas is asking, "How can a person make a complaint via the ombudsman?" So let's have a look at the process.

So first of all, the person would try to resolve the complaint directly with the organisation or business.

So that's really, really important.

You wouldn't go straight to the ombudsman.

First of all, you would try to resolve things yourself, so that would be your first point of call.

However, if nothing was resolved, if you were unable to get the answers that you needed, they would then be able to file a complaint with the ombudsman.

The ombudsman would then investigate the case by speaking to both sides, so speaking to the defendant and the claimant.

They would then make a recommendation or a ruling, which could involve an apology, compensation, or a change to practise.

And whilst this isn't always legally, you know, upstanding, actually people would normally go and do what the ombudsman were asking, because if not, it could be really damaging to the reputation of their organisation or business.

So let's have a check for understanding.

These are not in the right order, so what order do they need to be in? Can you put these in the correct order? Pause while you have a go.

And this is the correct order, so points one and three were in the incorrect space.

So first, the person would try and resolve the complaint themselves.

If nothing was resolved, they'd file a complaint with the ombudsman.

The ombudsman would then investigate the case by looking at both sides and speaking to both people, and then they would make a recommendation or ruling.

So let's have a look at that and what that might actually look like as a case study.

So let's imagine Mrs. A had a three-year contract with a mobile phone provider.

So that's a contract where both sides of that contract are agreeing to something.

Mrs. A would be agreeing to pay the money of that contract, and as a result, she'd be expecting to get the services outlined in the contract, and that's important.

A few months into the contract, she moved house and she realised that the signal was now terrible.

She couldn't get on the internet, she was struggling to make phone calls, et cetera.

She contacted her provider numerous times to try and solve the problem, but all of these attempts failed and Mrs. A still had poor reception.

As a result, she asked to leave her contract early because she wasn't able to use her phone, but the provider would not allow this.

So Mrs. A would file a complaint with the ombudsman as she felt that her consumer rights were not being met as her mobile phone was unusable due to the poor coverage in her area, so she ultimately wasn't getting what was outlined in her contract.

She explained to the ombudsman that she'd tried to resolve this directly with the provider, but they were now being uncooperative, they weren't really helping anymore.

The ombudsman agreed to look at the case and they began investigating, so this would involve speaking to Mrs. A and the provider in depth.

They would also look at evidence, they would look at the phone contract, they would look at the phone usage and billing information.

As a result, the ombudsman would likely recommend that the mobile phone company should allow Mrs. A to leave her contract early as the phone was simply unusable.

They might also state that the provider should pay Mrs. A 300 pounds in compensation due to the stress caused and hours spent on the phone trying to resolve the issue.

So that's what a case taken on by the ombudsman might look like.

So Lucas is asking, "Have the ombudsman been involved in any high profile cases?" Pause and have a think, think back to the earlier part of the lesson, there's a little bit of a clue.

Yes, the ombudsman actually played a really key role in the PPI scandal that we looked at earlier.

So the Financial Ombudsman Service were the people that handled the complaints from individuals, reviewing the cases and ensuring that repayments were made.

They were the first point of call for many of the citizens who wanted to make a claim for mis-sold PPI.

There have also been many cases where people have complained to the Local Government Ombudsman due to parking tickets.

So in many cases, the claimant is not disputing that they parked where they shouldn't have, but that the signage relating to parking times was unclear.

And in cases like this, if the ombudsman were to investigate and find that actually signage was really unclear or it was difficult to see, then they may advise the local council to waive the parking fine, so to basically get rid of the parking fine, and also to make changes to the signage to stop this happening again in the future.

So Lucas is asking, "What about mediation? How does that support a person's rights?" So this is another example of something that could happen outside of the civil courts.

So pause and think, have you heard the word mediation before? What might it mean and what might it look like? So mediation is a process where an independent third party, the mediator, helps people or organisations in conflict to negotiate and reach a voluntary agreement.

So this could be an employment dispute or this could be neighbour issues.

So that mediator is independent, they're not on anyone's side, they're completely independent, and that's really, really important.

So unlike a judge, a mediator does not make decisions for the parties involved.

Instead, they help them to communicate effectively and explore options to resolve the issue together without going to court.

A mediation supports an individual's right to communicate their point of view and have their opinions heard.

It also supports their right to privacy by aiming to resolve the dispute privately away from a courtroom.

Mediation is usually cheaper and quicker than going to court, meaning rights are supported more efficiently and without the additional stress of attending court.

It can also heal relationships between the two parties and that can be really useful and important if they're going to need to remain in contact.

So for example, divorced parents or work colleagues, they're still going to be in touch with each other, they're still going to see each other, so mediation can be a really useful tool.

So Lucas is asking, "How does mediation actually work?" So let's have a bit of a look at an example so we can really understand how it works in real time.

So firstly, it's important that both parties must consent to taking part.

It's a voluntary process and agreement is needed.

Remember, it's about trying to get the two people to work together collaboratively to kind of come up with a solution together, so they both need to be on board with that, they both need to agree to attempt to do that.

Mediation sessions take place and the mediator will help both parties to calmly discuss the issues and potential solutions, and they are very much resolution focused.

So the mediator will work really, really hard to try and keep the conversation positive, solution focused, making sure both people are being able to speak, trying to stop it becoming too negative or too toxic.

And then, if an agreement is reached, which is the aim, the mediator will then help the parties to formalise it, often creating a legally-binding contract.

So let's have a check for understanding.

So here we've got the stages of what happens during mediation, but there is a mistake within each stage.

Can you find those mistakes? Pause while you have a go.

So let's see what those mistakes are.

So in the first one, it's, "Firstly, only one party must consent to taking part." Both parties must consent, that was the first mistake.

In the second one, it talks about being retribution focused.

That's a mistake, mediation is resolution focused.

And in the third stage, they talk about the mediator helping them to create a non-legally binding contract when actually it's a legally-binding contract, so that was the third mistake.

So again, let's have a look at what this might look like in practise.

So Mr. and Mrs. B are going through a divorce and agree to use a family mediator to help them find a resolution about child custody.

The mediator facilitates a resolution-focused discussion where Mr. and Mrs. B can explore a range of possible solutions.

With support from the mediator, Mr. and Mrs. B agree on joint custody.

So this is something that could happen within a mediator round of sessions.

And this process ensures both parties have their rights supported.

Both the ombudsman and mediation help protect individuals' rights and ensure that people have a way to challenge unfair treatment without going through a formal trial process.

They provide access to justice for those who may not have the means to go to court, a faster, cheaper alternative to the court system, which can be time-consuming and expensive, and fair resolution for disputes, as they allow for mutual agreements rather than one party being forced into a decision by a judge.

Let's have a check for understanding.

Identify three benefits of using alternative dispute resolution rather than the civil court process.

So you may have said it's normally faster, cheaper, it's private, it may provide better access to justice, and it offers a fair resolution for both sides.

For Task B, I'd like you to compare and contrast the role that the ombudsman and mediation services play in ensuring citizens' rights are supported in civil cases.

And you may wish to refer to the case studies explored within your answer.

Pause while you have a go at this task.

So when comparing and contrasting the role of the ombudsman and mediation services, you may have included, "The ombudsman and mediation both help people get justice without going to court, but they do it in different ways.

An ombudsman investigates complaints about companies or public services and can order them to fix problems, like how the Financial Ombudsman Service made banks pay back 38 billion pounds to people that had been mis-sold PPI insurance.

Mediation, on the other hand, helps people talk through their issues and reach a fair agreement, like in child custody disputes where parents work with a mediator to decide who the child will live with instead of fighting in court.

While the ombudsman makes decisions based on rules, mediation lets both sides agree on a solution together, making it a more flexible way to solve problems." So, in summary of the lesson "How are rights supported in civil cases?" Civil courts protect individual rights by resolving disputes fairly and ensuring justice is served.

Judges play a key role in analysing evidence and applying appropriate legislation to ensure a fair outcome is reached based on the balance of probability, e.

g.

in the Duchess of Sussex's privacy case.

Outside of courts, rights are protected through ombudsman services and mediation, offering quicker and cost-effective solutions.

The Financial Ombudsman Service helped consumers claim 38 billion pounds in PPI compensation.

And mediation helps resolve disputes without legal battles, such as in divorce settlements or workplace conflicts.

That brings us to the end of the lesson, well done for all your hard work and I hope that you'll come back for some more Citizenship lessons in the future.