Funeral Expense Assistance regulations: consultation analysis

Payments and Deductions

Payments

Under existing DWP rules, in the majority of cases, payment is made directly to funeral directors on behalf of applicants, although requests to be paid directly can be made, for example, if the applicant has already paid the bill. The draft regulations propose continuing this practice, with consent from applicants, making clear to all FEA claimants what the process would be.

Q9. We have proposed to continue with the presumption that, where there is a bill outstanding and the applicant consents, the payment will be made directly to the funeral director. Where the bill has already been paid, the payment will be made to the applicant.

The majority of respondents agreed with this proposal. Where they did not, the main reason given was that the need for consent seemed misplaced.

Some respondents questioned the need for consent and indicated that this may lead to some people still receiving FEA directly and not using it to pay funeral directors for unpaid bills:

“Clarity is sought on the procedure to be followed, when there is a bill outstanding, but the applicant does not consent to the payment being made into their own bank account.”

Others indicated that they had no objection to funds being paid directly to the applicant where they were able to clearly demonstrate that the bill had already been paid, although another stressed that proof of payment must also be confirmed by the funeral director prior to any monies being sent directly to the applicant (otherwise funeral directors may still find themselves out of pocket).

Reiterating earlier sentiments, there were also comments that this system could be abused by some funeral directors, who may increase costs deliberately to draw down additional FEA and that this should be monitored. Other measures to protect the system would include encouraging claimants to keep receipts of all services received, as well as funeral directors being asked to confirm that the claimant is known to them as the payee, to avoid non-paying estranged or wider family members claiming FEA when they have not paid for the services used.

Others simply emphasised that a flexible system should be in place that gives people a choice in how the payment is received, ensuring that all individuals are treated with dignity and respect:

“…it is important that individuals are treated with dignity and given a choice in terms of how they receive their benefits. We believe that applicants should be given a choice of receiving the payment directly.”

More guidance may also be needed to cover cases where a funeral director had not been used, especially in minority ethnic communities where alternative community figures had taken on similar roles. For example, one person attending the organised event queried whether the mosque would be categorised as a funeral director and therefore able to receive the payment directly, as the mosque has a significant (though variable) role in arranging and carrying out some funerals. More consideration and consultation with minority ethnic communities may be required on this specific issue, it was suggested.

As with other areas of the consultation, comments were also made that this process needed to be clearly explained to applicants, including funeral directors being encouraged to communicate this to their clients early on. Overall, proposals to pay funeral directors directly in these cases was supported, and was seen as natural to continue with existing DWP practice.

Deductions from Payments

Under existing DWP rules, deductions are currently made for funerals of children where the child had assets in their own name, such as a Child Trust Fund (CTF). The Scottish Government proposed a move away from this practice in the illustrative regulations, to a situation of no deductions in such cases.

Q10. We have proposed not to make deductions from the payment award where there are assets in the name of the child who has died. Do you agree with this approach?

Everyone who provided a response to this question agreed with the proposal. Respondents particularly praised the proposal for including those under 18 instead of only those aged under 16 and that CTFs would be untouched (although some attending the organised event sought clarity around how ‘child’ was defined, and also how CTFs worked). The Scottish Government was commended for what was perceived to be a ‘goodwill gesture’.

Some caveats were cited, including the need to treat all cases on individual merit (e.g. in the case of very wealthy children, one respondent questioned whether FEA would be appropriate), and the need to ensure that care was taken to consider any monies/assets transferred to an under 18 for the purposes of money laundering, tax evasion, inheritance tax evasion or financial contributions for care.

Others commented that they would also welcome any future efforts to reduce other burdens for surviving family members in the death of a child, including unnecessary restrictions on service time and duration at crematoria, as well as removal or restriction of costs for registration and burials of people under the age of 18.

One comment was also made that it would be important to communicate policy intentions in this regard alongside the announcements on removal of local authority and private provider charges for children’s funerals. Others attending the organised event suggested that greater clarity was also required from the Scottish Government around what was meant by ‘assets’ and that a clear distinction needed to be drawn between assets and savings.

One view against this proposal was presented at the organised event on the basis that it discriminated against people on the grounds of age. This was, however, very much a lone view.