Appointee Query Re: ESA to UC

tomtom256

You will need to request a home visit for appointee verification as they do not allow the transfer of existing appointeeship to UC.

When you make the claim and ring for an intial appointment, advise them and they will send an email to the relevant local office (PAC inbox) to arrange a home visit.

calcotti

tomtom256 wrote: »

.....they do not allow the transfer of existing appointeeship to UC.

Do you know why this is? Is it to check the digital capability of the appointee, as has been suggested above?

tomtom256

calcotti wrote: »

Do you know why this is? Is it to check the digital capability of the appointee, as has been suggested above?

No it's a policy/legislation thing, could never get a straight answer at work for the exact reason why.

Normally the appointee has already made the claim digitally when they realise they cannot continue as the actual claimant has to verify their own id, thats normally when the service centre email the PAC inbox so that a home visit can be arranged to reverify the BF56, even though CIS already has them registered for PIP etc anda BF56 is held.

Not come across any yet that needed the apointeeship authorising before the online claim had been made.

It's madness!

calcotti

tomtom256 wrote: »

It's madness!

That bit’s consistent then.

Ineededaname

How is it madness to check that the person taking responsibility for someone elses benefit is actually capable of doing what is required, and to have those responsibilites properly explained to them? Appointees could be anyone, normally a family member, and their abilities and personal circumstances could be anything. On the contrary it would be madness to just assume the Appointee would be able to do all this, and potenitally could put vulnerable people at risk. There are significant differences between managing UC and managing previous benefits.

Also, if someone on other benefits with the DWP makes a UC claim then all of their idenity and details are checked again. Why would they just allow the transfer of an appointee if they don't even allow the transfer of a claimant. It's obviously consistent at least.

tomtom256

Ineededaname wrote: »

How is it madness to check that the person taking responsibility for someone elses benefit is actually capable of doing what is required, and to have those responsibilites properly explained to them? Appointees could be anyone, normally a family member, and their abilities and personal circumstances could be anything. On the contrary it would be madness to just assume the Appointee would be able to do all this, and potenitally could put vulnerable people at risk. There are significant differences between managing UC and managing previous benefits.

Also, if someone on other benefits with the DWP makes a UC claim then all of their idenity and details are checked again. Why would they just allow the transfer of an appointee if they don't even allow the transfer of a claimant. It's obviously consistent at least.

Did you read what I actually wrote.

In every appointee case I have dealt with, the online claim for UC has already been made and they are already registered as an appointee for another DWP benefit.

This in itself shows they are capable of using the digitial service, so what is there to actually check in these cases?

Ineededaname

tomtom256 wrote: »

Did you read what I actually wrote.

In every appointee case I have dealt with, the online claim for UC has already been made and they are already registered as an appointee for another DWP benefit.

This in itself shows they are capable of using the digitial service, so what is there to actually check in these cases?

That's not true at all, as claims are completed by third parties all of the time. Literally all of the time. A claim being made does not mean it was completed by the person or by the appointee. If people don't know what they are doing they often go for advice and help from somewhere like CAB or other local advice agencies and will have support to make the claim.

The appointee themselves would not necessarily need to have internet access and capability to manage the UC claim if they have access to some support. However, and this is the important bit, going for help once to make the claim is far different from going for help multiple times a week to log in and check on it. The appointee would have to have easy access to this support, clearly understand the responsiblity and be willing to do this.
The DWP can refuse an appointee if they are concerned they are not digitally capable and unable to access support. I've only seen this happen on one occasion, but they can do it.

calcotti

Ineededaname wrote: »

The DWP can refuse an appointee if they are concerned they are not digitally capable and unable to access support. I've only seen this happen on one occasion, but they can do it.

I can see logic to this but the madness is that actual claimants are not scrutinised in this way, rather they are pushed towards making digital claims regardless of what they say about their digital capability. DWP are by most accounts reluctant to accept telephone claims.

Ineededaname

Yes phone claims are supposed to be the last resort. I think it's that it's not just about digital capability, but about access to support and the ability to learn. If the person can access support they are unlikely to accept a phone claim. If this is a good thing or not is another debate entirely

In the case I know of where the appointee was refused, I'm pretty sure they would have accepted a phone claim for the appointee if they had been claiming for themselves.

Jack'sMum

As a DWP appointee I find your response insulting in parts. Appointees could not be just 'anyone' we are interviewed and appointed by an officer acting on behalf of the Secretary of State!

Existing appointees wishing to claim UC could have their digital competency checked by a simple phone call from the UC department. An information pack explaining the responsibilities and workings of UC could be sent out by post. This would save the tax payer a fortune in unnecessary service visits and administration!

Appointeeships should be checked periodically as a matter of course to make sure the appointment is still necessary/relevant but why should they be checked simply because UC is being claimed? What about a claimant with an appointee who will never make a claim to UC, does this mean their appointeeship will never be checked?

One of the key roles and responsibilities of being an appointee is claiming Social Service benefits, including UC. By disallowing already approved appointees to claim UC on behalf of a claimant shows a complete disregard for the Appointee and the system in which they appointed under.