Social Security experience panels: appointees - report

Reviewing an appointeeship

How often should appointee arrangements be reviewed

Respondents were asked how frequently an appointee arrangement should be reviewed, and could select multiple options. 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).

Table 10: How often Social Security Scotland should check both clients and appointees are happy to continue (n=250)

Response options (select all that apply)	%
When the client or appointee requests it	62%
If someone else asks Social Security Scotland to do so or raises a concern	56%
When the client's benefits are changed or reviewed	54%
Every year	40%
Every two years	20%
Another time	6%

Suggestions for "another time" included more frequent checks such as every three or six months, and also others who felt it should be less frequent, such as every four years. Others suggested it should be reviewed when the client goes through a change in their health condition or circumstances.

When asked to explain their views on how often appointee arrangements should be reviewed, responses were varied and often polarised. There were those who felt there should only be a review if a concern was raised about the appointment, whilst others argued that regular reviews, annually or even more regularly, were critical to safeguard clients.

Among those who argued for less frequent reviews, respondents felt that the burden placed on clients and appointees through review processes should be minimised, that there is already "enough paper work" and minimise "unnecessary stress".

"No need to keep on checking up if people are happy with the arrangement."

"Dealing with disabilities is tiring and stressful. It's important to have checks in place but these need to be at a level which doesn't become a burden."

Many argued that rather than fixed timescales for reviews, this should be dependent on the needs of the client. For example, a client may wish to specify how long they wish the appointee arrangement to last, or it might make sense for an appointee arrangement to last for the duration of a benefit award. Some felt individual circumstances should be considered – for example it could be very distruptive for a review to happen in the middle of a redetermination or appeal process.

"A periodic check is sensible. However, the frequency should be determined partly by the turnaround of decisions. It would be unhelpful to bring about an end to an appointee role in the middle of an unresolved issue, only to have to take action to reinstate the person."

Many respondents were in favour of a regular review cycle, with most of these respondents supporting an annual review, and some supporting a two-yearly review. Many felt that this regular review should be supplemented by reviews being scheduled if any concerns are raised, or if there was a change of circumstances.

Respondents felt that regular reviews are important to make sure that any change of circumstances are picked up and to make sure that the client/appointee relationship is working well. They felt that this would also help to protect clients from exploitation, abuse or coersion.

"The relationship can legitimately change in time, so checking in on the status is of course important. However unnecessary contacts from authority cause panic and are intrusive. A simple question at the points described above would be adequate for all parties."

"The situation should be constantly under review. An appointee is for exceptional circumstances. If it's a long-term situation, the appointee and client should have the chance to say they want to stop or are unhappy with the situation."

Some pointed out that a client may not always be aware or able to say if they are being exploited or abused and that checks should take that into account.

"Safeguarding is the most important thing here, so checking whenever there is any sort of doubt raised, or change in benefits is essential, and not just a tick box, wrongdoing, or anything in doubt needs to be acted on immediately."

How should Social Security Scotland review an appointee arrangement

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.

Table 11: Methods Social Security Scotland should offer to check that clients and appointees are happy to continue (n=249)

Response options (select all that apply)	%
A face to face conversation	67%
A form submitted online or by email	52%
A phone conversation	43%
A form submitted by post	43%
Another way	7%

A number of those who said they would want checks to happen "another way" suggested video calls as an alternative way of have a face-to-face conversation with clients and appointees. Others emphasised the importance of giving options and prioritising the needs of the client and the appointee. Some suggested more detailed checks should be in place, such as speaking to social work, medical professionals, or other professionals involved with their case, checking how payments have been managed, or "spot checks" on how the arrangement is working.

What should be looked at as part of the review?

When asked what should be looked at as part of a review of an appointee arrangement, most respondents were in favour of a broad range of questions being considered, relating to the client's and appointee's wishes, the appointee's management of the role, and any changes of circumstances.

Table 12: Areas that respondents felt should be looked at as part of a review of an appointee arrangement (n=248)

Response options (select all that apply)	%
Any changes to the client's wishes	93%
Whether the client is happy with their level of involvement	86%
Any concerns about the appointee's ability to do the role	86%
Any significant changes to the client's health	84%
Whether the client is happy with how their case is being managed	82%
How the benefit payments are being managed	76%
Any changes to the appointee's wishes	76%
Something else	9%

For those who said that "something else" should be looked at as part of the review, suggestions included whether the appointee has the ability or capacity to do the role and whether both parties are happy to continue. Others were concerned about having procedures in place to capture when things go wrong, including if the client incurs significant debt or if there are concerns about the conduct of the appointee. Some felt that reviews should not add any stress or burden to the client.

Wider feedback and concerns

Many respondents were very supportive of the proposal to offer the option for someone to have an appointee where they have capacity to make their own decisions. They felt that this would offer flexibility and could be beneficial to people in a range of situations, such as a time of crisis, ill health or progression of an illness. Some felt that the current definition of "lacking capacity" is very strict, and that there are people who fall short of that definition but who struggle to cope with managing things like benefits applications, appeals, and even day to day finances. Others felt that all clients should be alerted to this option to avoid people struggling without support.

"It should not rely on legal lack of capacity on an ongoing basis but should be accessible to anyone going through a difficult time due to bereavement, mental health issues, physical illness"

"I wouldn't normally be considered to require an appointee but I would really like one. I think it would make things much less stressful for me."

Some argued that thought should be given to the role that professionals and voluntary organisations could play in acting as appointees. In particular, for people who do not have a trusted friend or relative who could act for them.

"I think should be seperate paid posts set up in these organisation that people turn to when need help, but so often have to wait considerable amount of time to get someone to help usually too late as form or dispute has to be done in a timeframe. So people who don't have a family/friend to take this on don't get left without."

Some respondents felt strongly that there should be strict safeguards in place to protect vulnerable clients. Some suggested, for example, that spot checks should be made to make sure that the appointee is fulfilling their responsibilities appropriately. Others felt that payments should not be made into appointees' bank accounts.

"Both from professional and personal experience I think the appointees system is essential. However safeguards need to be in place; ideally the payments should always be made to the claimant."

A number of respondents highlighted the need for clarity on the role of an appointee, and raised concerns about the burden placed upon appointees, especially if they are also the person's carer.

"I think the role of the appointee should be made very clear at every stage of the appointment process so that there is no doubt about their role and responsibilities."

"The level of support and work required of an appointee who is dealing with an ill family member is more than say a friend or an organisation. What I mean here is that someone with some emotional distance can deal with another level of paperwork pretty easily. Their capacity to understand the difficulties and nuances of anothers life very limited. For the well being of the ill person you must have the well-being of the appointee."