North West “E” Government Group (NWEGG) Meeting with DWP
Notes of meeting held at Houldsworth Mill, Stockport - 17 January 2011
Issues:
1BF 56 application process – processing delays and inconsistencies
Points highlighted: need to send duplicate forms if more than one benefit in payment
Unclear where BF56 should be sent if working with a case where little or no information is available about the service user – unable to confirm benefit type in payment until appointeeship actioned but appointeeship cannot be actioned until BF56 lodged)
Also issue because DWP ask for security information which the LA may not have – DWP solution is telephony with back up of security questions, no way round this at this time though may be able to look at how corporate appointees can work around this – there may be an on-line solution – LA’s concerns can be factored into this development (hopefully)
Considerations: leads to additional work (duplication) for LA’s and also for DWP as two forms sent and enter processing within the DWP
Also DWP operational staff cannot initiate new claim until appointeeship sorted and change of circumstances cannot be actioned until appointeeship issues resolved
Can lead to overpayment of benefits as changes of circumstances not actioned as speedily as they could – eg AA continues to be paid even after person has been in hospital or residential care for in excess of 28 days
Suggestion: have information sharing protocol in relation to safeguarding/appointeeship/deputyship cases or
have a point of contact for all corporate appointeeship applications to be channelled through – would avoid duplication for both organisations
DWP acknowledged that their systems should cascade information about appointeeship appointments to all payment areas so that there should be no need for LA’s to send duplicate forms
DWP suggested that most (if not all) of the cases that LA’s deal with would be entitled to disability benefits so suggestion to send BF56 to D&CB Unit in first instance
Issue for LA’s AA/DLA may be in suspense and may not therefore trigger a response from D&CBU, plus some service users will not be in receipt of DLA/AA or LA’s won’t know and D&CBU won’t tell an LA submitting a BF56 to them if not appropriate and won’t forward to appropriate payment section.
Additional suggestion: (post meeting) LA’s to complete BF56 electronically and email (from secure mailbox) to a nominated mailbox address within the DWP
2BF57 – non-receipt
Issue for LA’s in that most Audit Teams will require evidence of the LA’s appointment, but BF57’s rarely received.
Suggested that BF57 should be automatically generated by ops staff when inputting appointeeship details onto their database – however it was also suggested that if corporate appointeeship already recognised in respect of AN Other then their system will not issue “a duplicate” – ie only one BF57 per authority, not issued for individual benefit claimants.
Suggestion: DWP should obtain clarity and report back
If able to issue BF57 for each appointeeship application this should be done, if not LA’s need to consider how else DWP can notify them that the application has been successful.
3Safeguarding – role of DWP and relationship with LA’s
Concerns: lack of engagement (top down) throughout the DWP in relation to safeguarding, eg representation on Safeguarding Boards, involvement in training, attendance at strategy meetings or case conferences; lack of awareness of safeguarding procedures and policies (local); lack of involvement in training in areas of financial abuse in particular but also general safeguarding awareness
This then impacts in terms of there being no agreed protocols for dealing with safeguarding referrals.
Also concerns re: DWP staff lack of awareness and understanding of MCA issues
DWP requested definitions of abuse, specifically financial abuse -
Advised definitions used in No Secrets have been adopted by most LA’s
DWP also requested contact details for Safeguarding Managers in NW so that they can contact to ask for stats – ie number of financial abuse cases, how many have resulted in an application for corporate appointeeship (if data available)
DWP also suggested that they would need information relating to children’s safeguarding – in relation to financial abuse although it was suggested that financial abuse as a specific category may not feature in children’s safeguarding (coming instead under the general category of abuse) – however DWP keen to ascertain whether children’s disability benefits also being miss-used by appointees
Agreed to make contact with DMBC children’s safeguarding manager to discuss and report back
NWEGG will also contact NWEGG financial assessment teams to seethey can provide details of debt outstanding against appointees in order to assess impact nationally in terms of uncollected income
LA’s confirmed non-payment of care fees has massive implications for individual councils but also for the country – in effect people are being double funded (by central government through the benefit system, and LA’s through the provision of care for which no contribution is received)
It was suggested that both organisations need to work together to prevent this waste/abuse of public funds.
In relation to financial abuse – some case studies quoted, outlining impact on service user of appointee misappropriating funds, including impact on DWP in relation to overpaid benefits because family members etc fail to notify of changes of address/circs etc
Issues also highlighted in relation to CHC cases – PCT’s won’t notify DWP of CHC cases but this information is received (usually) by LA’s due to joint commissioning responsibilities – opportunity for information sharing protocol to prevent benefit overpayment/fraud but information flow has to be two way.
4Fast Track for Safeguarding Cases
Issues in relation to impact for vulnerable adults highlighted
Suggested that fast track protocol (national) be agreed – again possibility of one point of contact to channel all requests through
Suggested that LA’s would be able/prepared to use an agreed standard template and provide evidence requirements to back up requests for action in safeguarding cases – template letters can be disseminated through APAD and NAFAO.
5DWP & OPG
DWP confirmed that they are doing some work (hopefully) with the OPG whereby Pension Local Service (PLS) staff – visiting officers – will look to raise awareness of LPA process etc
Highlighted to DWP that OPG have reported figures in terms of number of Attorneys and Deputies who are found to financially abuse vulnerable adults – LPA/Deputyship does not guarantee protection/safeguarding for vulnerable adult
6Recovery of overpaid benefit income
Issues: DWP will try to reclaim overpaid benefits (overpaid because an appointee has failed to report a material fact – eg change of circs) from benefit claimant, even where they take the decision to revoke appointeeship because misappropriation/fraud identified
DWP denied this initially and said that they would recover from former appointee – numerous anecdotal evidence to the contrary so DWP agreed to check with debt team in relation to recovery protocols
DWP also said that they would prosecute where fraud proven – but qualified this when challenged and confirmed that this would be done only where economically viable – ie if perpetrator on income based benefits DWP are limited as to what can be deducted and no criminal prosecution likely
DWP challenged as to whether benefit claimant who has been the victim of abuse would be recompensed for income not received – initially DWP said that they would be then agreed that this would only occur where the agency was able to recover in full the monies paid to the former appointee – ie never!
7UN Convention – appointeeship review
DWP confirmed that corporate appointeeships, EPA/LPA and Deputyship outside of the scope of the review which has just been piloted in southern and middle England (not Wales)
LA’s challenged why EPA/LPA/Deputies excluded – given the amount of abuse which is carried out by EPA/LPA/Deputies
DWP said that an Attorney or Deputyship “trumps” appointeeship – DWP do not have to appoint appointee in these cases, they simply identify attorney/deputy on their database and confirmed that they do not have power to revoke in these cases
LA’s asked DWP to investigate and clarify this point – LA belief that DWP can use delegated power of the Secretary of State to revoke even in these cases
Suggested that nevertheless DWP have a duty of care to the benefit claimant so that if safeguarding alert received they should act to ensure that no further benefits are paid to an alleged perpetrator
DWP suggested that the agency has only just received the power to review appointeeships – however it was suggested that they had always had the power (and the duty) but had failed – DWP has recently been made aware that they have been in breach of the UN convention on disability rights because of its failure to review, it has not just been given additional legislative powers
LA’s also expressed concerns that DWP would still take softly, softly approach to reviews when LA’s and voluntary organisations involved in the protection or support of vulnerable adults would prefer DWP to be more assertive (eg deputy declaration)
DWP stated that they struggled to find viable number of family appointeeships for older people in their pilot scope - most people were either responsible for their own benefits or had corporate appointee or had EPA/LPA/Deputy
LA’s highlighted that many older people lose capacity but manage to scrape by because they have set up DD etc to pay bills prior to losing capacity – they only come to the attention of Adult Services when they reach crisis.
8Providing support to the Physically Incapacitated
DWP asked to clarify how LA’s and DWP can support capacitated adults who are “housebound” to manage their benefits – given restrictions on staff having bank cards/pin numbers etc
Only option currently – giro cheque which DWP are phasing out
9Capacitated residents who refuse to pay residential care charges
DWP asked to clarify whether benefits can be “split” in order for PEA to be sent to a capacitated person in residential care who refuses to pay care charges with balance being paid direct to the LA or care provider (net paying LA’s)
1