Fuming at how the Jobcentre have just treated me

Legacy_user

Phoned up to query about a payment and he helped me with it, then went on to say 'Why do you have an appointee' which is way off-track to what I originally queriered about, so I said it's because I have a disability. He then went on to say 'That doesn't stop you from doing the things from day to day life though, does it' My disability obviously does as I have autism and struggle with certain things.

He doesn't even know me to start off with, and how he can shout me down like that without even knowing me is dispicable!

</rant>

TELLIT01

It certainly sounds as if the person you spoke to handled the question very poorly, but the question itself is a valid one. If you have an appointee the JC should be dealing with them in all matters, not with yourself. If the way you were handling yourself on the phone made the JC staff member wonder about why you required an appointee, it justifies further investigation but the question should not have been put to you. The question should have been raised internally at JC and your appointee contacted.

dippy3103

I agree... clearly he felt you are able to handle your own claim. From your post you are clearly articulate so maybe he was trying to make you feel more able? It does sound as if he was tactless though. An appointee is for someone who can not manage their own affairs & you can. You can however give a third party permission to discuss your claim.

My son is autistic so I do understand that something's are harder.

kingfisherblue

I have to agree with the above two posts. I am appointee for one of my sons, who cannot manage any of his appointments, finances, travel, or day to day life at all - he has a severe learning disability and numerous physical problems. My other son, however, is able to manage his own affairs despite being autistic. He is high functioning and we haven't applied for PIP, as he does not fit the descriptors. He is articulate, as the OP clearly is, and would not need an appointee even if he qualified for benefits. Having said that, I assume that there is a reason that the OP has an appointee - but it is part of the appointee's role to make enquiries such as the one above. The JC employee has handled it badly (or maybe the OP has misinterpreted it - having autism can make understanding difficult, including when different tones are used - maybe it was in a questioning voice rather than a critical one).

Perhaps the appointee could speak to a JC manager and clarify the situation, and maybe suggest more training for the employee if necessary.

marliepanda

himynameisaaron wrote: »

Phoned up to query about a payment and he helped me with it, then went on to say 'Why do you have an appointee' which is way off-track to what I originally queriered about, so I said it's because I have a disability. He then went on to say 'That doesn't stop you from doing the things from day to day life though, does it' My disability obviously does as I have autism and struggle with certain things.

He doesn't even know me to start off with, and how he can shout me down like that without even knowing me is dispicable!

</rant>

You're overreacting. To be honest if you ave an appointee it may be that they shouldn't discuss anything with you, and you have deemed yourself incapable of handling it so appointed someone else.

Although its your claim, if you misunderstood something or agreed to something incorrectly due to whatever reason you have an appointee, the JC could be held liable. You could turn around and say 'well, i told you to only deal with my appointee.'

dan99

I suspect there are many people who have appointees that don't actually need them. Anybody can be a appointee technically, apparently it looks better on the paperwork. I think the only time a appointeeship looks better is if you have Social Services acting as the Appointee. That way when they fill in the forms and stamp with there branded stamp it means more because it's likely to be factual unlike home filled out ones. They have more weight. Plus the DWP is unlikely to disagree with it and people with Social services needs have more support anyway.

elsien

Social services don't act as appointee in my area. The service has been hived out to agencies such as Age UK and there is now a cost implication.

dan99

Here it is £50 a month costs for them to manage your finances and the criteria is that you need substantial to critical needs and already receive support. It's the local county hall finance department. It's hard to be accepted, thats why I think it has more weight. Plus it's more LD related, not sure where old people who need appointees get there support.

TELLIT01

dan99 wrote: »

I suspect there are many people who have appointees that don't actually need them. Anybody can be a appointee technically, apparently it looks better on the paperwork. I think the only time a appointeeship looks better is if you have Social Services acting as the Appointee. That way when they fill in the forms and stamp with there branded stamp it means more because it's likely to be factual unlike home filled out ones. They have more weight. Plus the DWP is unlikely to disagree with it and people with Social services needs have more support anyway.

For somebody to be given appointee status for a person making a claim through DWP is not an easy process, nor a 'given' just because they apply. They must show that the person for whom they wish to be appointee is incapable of managing their own affairs. I have no idea what you mean by 'it looks better on the paperwork'. In fact you contradict yourself in the next sentance anyway.

dan99

I said it hard to be accepted for a Social Services appointee. It's a lot easier to have family manage your financial affairs. Pretty much if both parties are in agreement appointeeship is awarded.

Pollycat

TELLIT01 wrote: »

For somebody to be given appointee status for a person making a claim through DWP is not an easy process, nor a 'given' just because they apply. They must show that the person for whom they wish to be appointee is incapable of managing their own affairs. I have no idea what you mean by 'it looks better on the paperwork'. In fact you contradict yourself in the next sentance anyway.

I agree with this.

dan99 wrote: »

I suspect there are many people who have appointees that don't actually need them. Anybody can be a appointee technically, apparently it looks better on the paperwork. I think the only time a appointeeship looks better is if you have Social Services acting as the Appointee. That way when they fill in the forms and stamp with there branded stamp it means more because it's likely to be factual unlike home filled out ones. They have more weight. Plus the DWP is unlikely to disagree with it and people with Social services needs have more support anyway.

Maybe anybody can be an appointee technically - but it's not just a case of saying 'I want to be X's appointee'.
When my Dad was admitted to a care home with developing dementia, I applied to be my dad's appointee.
It involved a visit from DWP (I think, it was over 6 years ago) who physically checked that my Dad was unable to manage his affairs.

I'm not sure why someone would want an appointee if they didn't need one

I don't get why it 'looks better on the paperwork'.
What paperwork?