Social Security experience panels: appointees - report

Summary

The first part of this survey looked at respondent's previous experience of acting as an appointee. Almost a third (31 per cent) of respondents had experience of being an appointee, either currently or in the past. Most of these were an appointee for either their child or another family member. Respondents described a range of disabilities and long term health conditions that had caused the requirement for an appointee, including learning disabilities, neurological conditions, mental health conditions, terminal illness or old age.

Almost two in five (38 per cent) said they had experience of a third party acting on their behalf, and more than one in ten had experience of an advocate acting on their behalf. Overall, most respondents said that the person or organisation helping them were able to help with some or all of the areas that they needed support with. However, respondents highlighted limitations in terms of the support available to them, either due to resource limitations or due to restrictions in what the DWP would allow. This was a particular issue around the assessment and appeals processes where some felt that the person there to support them was unable to speak up for them or in support of them.

In the second part of the survey, respondents were asked about whether they would ever choose to become an appointee, or have an appointee act on their behalf. For these questions respondents were asked to answer in the context of someone who was not deemed to be lacking in capacity, but who would choose to have an appointee for another reason. Half (51 per cent) said that they might choose to become an appointee for a client of Social Security Scotland. The situations in which they would consider doing so included for a close friend or family member, particularly if that person became very ill or was struggling to cope with the benefit processes. Many also specifically mentioned they would choose to act as an appointee for an elderly parent or their child.

A number of respondents said they would want to be able to help if someone were unable to act for themselves. Some of the circumstances described may constitute situations where the adult in question were not deemed to be lacking in capacity, but where they were still struggling to cope with the benefits system. Examples of where this may be relevant included a range of disabilities or long term health conditions, challenges with communication or numerical skills, challenges with planning or organisational skills, challenges with technology, or difficult personal circumstances.

Seven in ten (71 per cent) respondents said that in the right circumstances they might choose to have an appointee act for them. Many said that they may choose this if their existing conditions progressed. In particular mental health conditions, conditions which impact memory or cognitive function, some physical conditions, fatigue, and conditions that impact their ability to complete paperwork. Some also said that navigating the current DWP benefits system can have a negative impact on their health condition due to the stress it can provoke. Others said that there may be difficult circumstances where they would want an appointee to act for them, such as worsening illness, hospital admission, or a traumatic life event.

Most (93 per cent) respondents who said they might choose to have an appointee act for them said that they would want the appointee to apply for a benefit for them. Two thirds (66 per cent) said they would want the appointee to receive all communications from Social Security Scotland on their behalf. Fewer respondents said they would want the appointee to make decisions about their benefits (39 per cent) or receive the benefit payment (20 per cent). Some respondents were clear that they would still want to retain some control if they had an appointee.

More than two in five (44 per cent) respondents who said they might choose to have an appointee act for them said that they would want their partner or spouse to act as their appointee. More than half said "another close family member".

Respondents were asked how Social Security Scotland should check if someone is suitable to be an appointee. If respondents said that they would never choose to have an appointee they were given the option to opt out of these questions, however most respondents opted to answer them. Just over seven in ten (71 per cent) said that there should be background checks and almost six in ten said that Social Security Scotland should visit them face to face. Many respondents felt that protecting the interests of the client should be the priority and highlighted that clients could be vulnerable to exploitation, coercion or abuse. Others felt that the process should be made as simple as possible for clients and appointees and that the level of checks required should depend on the circumstances.

Respondents were asked how frequently an appointee arrangement should be reviewed. Just over three in five (62 per cent) said that checks should happen when the client or appointee requests it. More than half felt that checks should happen if someone else asks Social Security Scotland to do so or raises a concern (56 per cent) or when the client's benefits are changed or reviewed (54 per cent). Views on the frequency of reviews varied from those who felt that the burden on clients should be minimised by only reviewing if there is a concern, to those who felt more regular checks would be necessary to safeguard clients.

Respondents were asked how Social Security Scotland should review an appointee arrangement. Two thirds (67 per cent) said there should be a face to face conversation. More than half (52 per cent) said that a form should be submitted online or by email. When asked what should be looked at, most respondents were in favour of a broad range of questions being considered, relating to the client and appointee's wishes, the appointee's management of the role, and any changes of circumstances.

Overall, many respondents were very supportive of the proposal to offer the option for someone to choose have an appointee where they are deemed to have the capacity to make decisions. People felt that this would be valuable in a range of circumstances where someone was struggling to cope with the benefits process including a disability, ill health or difficult personal circumstances. Safeguarding the interests of clients was consistently highlighted as a priority, and some felt that consideration should be given for how to support clients who might feel they require an appointee but who do not have a close friend or family member in a position to support them. Others suggested that there should be guidance about the role of an appointee, and on what support might be available to them.