Social Security experience panels: appointees - report

Setting up an appointeeship

Respondents were asked about the process for setting up an appointee. If they did not think they would ever choose to have an appointee they were given the option to skip this set of questions. Responses to this question were mixed. Just over three in ten (31 per cent) said they would want a member of staff from Social Security Scotland to visit them at home, and just over a quarter (26 per cent) saying they would want the appointee to contact Social Security Scotland for them.

Among those who said that they would want to appoint an appointee "another way", responses included a visit at home with the appointee present, by email or online, or by completing a form or writing to Social Security Scotland. Some suggested that written confirmation should be provided to both the appointee and the client, and some suggested that proof of identification should be required.

The survey explained to respondents that Social Security Scotland has a duty of care to clients, and that it needs to make sure that clients are not exploited if someone is appointed to act for them. It also needs to keep processes as simple as possible and not put in place any unnecessary burden on clients, particularly if they might be going through a difficult time. With this context, survey respondents were asked how Social Security Scotland should check if someone is suitable to be an appointee.

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.

Table 9: How Social Security Scotland should check if someone is suitable to be an appointee (n=248)

Those who said that Social Security Scotland should use another way of checking whether someone is suitable to be an appointee suggested a statement from the client about why they chose the appointee, a written plan for how the appointee arrangement should work, by talking to the client, or by using video chat with both parties. Others suggested there should be robust checks in place including background checks, or that there should be legal documents in place such as a PVG check, or a Power of Attorney. However, it is worth noting that if a Power of Attorney were in place, the client would not also require an appointee arrangement in order for that individual to act on their behalf.

When asked to explain their answer, many respondents felt that protecting the interests of the client should be the priority, with some highlighting that a client may be vulnerable to exploitation, coercion or abuse. Some respondents felt that the checks in place should depend on the circumstances of the individual client and appointee, or their relationship. For example, some felt that if the appointee were a close family member, or if they were well known to the client, then a background check should not be necessary, but they would expect this to be in place for a professional or a volunteer if they were to act in this capacity.

"I think if someone was an MP or a professional, references and background checks would be sufficient. If it was a friend, I would expect there to be a face to face meeting (with me too)."

"If it's a parent or spouse I don't think it's necessary to check as the person knows them well but if it's another family member or a friend the background may need to be established as some people may befriend others to deliberately take advantage of them"

Others felt that background checks should always be in place to safeguard vulnerable clients.

"As that individual will be taking on a role that is for the safety and health of that person and will deal with personal issues the person must be checked that they have not got a criminal record."

In describing the background checks they felt should be in place, a number of different types of checks were cited. These included police or criminal record checks (such as PVG), financial background checks (for example for debt or past evidence of fraud or financial crime) and checking the domestic abuse register.

Many respondents were in favour of face to face interviews as a means to assess the suitability of an appointee. They felt that this would help to ensure that the appointee was acting in the best interests of the client, was able to do the role, and would allow Social Security Scotland to make sure that the client was not being coerced into making the appointment. Others felt these conversations should be able to be done remotely, for example using video conferencing, or over the phone.

"A face to face interview for appointee action is the safest way to ensure that both the appointee and benefit claimant are protected and the full role of the appointee is explained in detail"

A number of respondents felt that all possible checks should be in place to protect the client – including interviews, references and background checks. However, some respondents felt that the priority should be minimising the burden or stress felt by clients. Some pointed out that a face-to-face conversation could be very difficult for some clients.

"My brother wanted me to be appointee which currently is a long drawn out process where someone has to visit and decide if the person has capacity or not. For my brother this process was extremely daunting as part of his disability is being unable to communicate with strangers. This left him very anxious in the build-up. I think it would be easier to reach a decision without having to meet face to face and safeguarding can be put in place by doing background checks and seeking written permissions."

A number of respondents felt that the client's decision to appoint should be viewed as enough, without further checks being necessary.

"The appointee is of greatest import to the applicant. They hold safety, reassurance and often mean a great deal to the person applying. Their very selection by the applicant and contact details ought to suffice when complete strangers wield life changing circumstances at their whim and will."

"If I was to ask someone to act as an appointee for myself I would be mortified if you then asked that person to prove something. How could I ask someone for help if it was to be an inquistion into their life to help me?"