Scottish Social Security Consortium

Minutes of meeting 13 May 2003

Present:
Abigail Bremner Citizens Advice Scotland
Susan Drew Highland Advice and Information Network
Alice Jarvie Help The Aged
Alice MacAlister One Parent Families Scotland
Leah McKend Drumchapel Law and Money Advice Centre
Judith Paterson Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland
Danny Philips Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland
Chris White Scottish Association for Mental Health
Jo Whitfield The Action Group
Nuala Toman Shelter Scotland

INTRODUCTIONS

Danny Philips welcomed everyone to the meeting and outlined the remit of the consortium to share information on social security benefits issues.

THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW SERVICE

Sir Richard Tilt, Independent Review Service Commissioner, gave a presentation to the group outlining the role of the IRS as well as the problems the service encountered around social fund decision-making. He was joined by Ann Greenshields, also of the IRS.

Remit of the IRS
Sir Richard explained that the IRS is an independent agency, separate from the DWP. When social fund legislation was introduced, it was not intended to have an independent body to review decisions, and the IRS came about due to an amendment by the House of Lords.

The social fund is made up of two elements: the regulated fund (covering such things as Maternity Grants and Winter Fuel payments over which there is no discretion) and the discretionary fund (which takes in Crisis Loans, Community Care Grants and Budgeting Loans). The IRS only has a remit to review decisions relating to the discretionary social fund.

The IRS also has a role in publishing the social fund and the review process so that as many people as possible are aware of their rights. Voluntary organisations in the advice sector have an important part to play in this. To this end, the IRS offers a number of general and in-depth training courses covering specific aspects of the social fund as well as the review process. More information about IRS courses is available at www.irs-review.org.uk (contact jed@irs-review.org.uk, 0121 606 2119).

Review process
When a claimant receives an adverse decision in relation to the social fund, the first stage is to ask Jobcentre Plus staff to look again at the decision. The review will be considered by a different, generally more senior, decision-maker and will usually involve an interview with the client. Sir Richard highlighted that 50% of decisions were changed at this stage.

Only after a review has been carried out by Jobcentre Plus staff can a claimant request a review by the IRS. A booklet explaining the review process should be included with the written notification of the outcome of the Jobcentre Plus review.

Sir Richard emphasised that IRS procedures were designed to be as straightforward as possible. A form to request a review was included in the booklet: however, any written communication requesting a review would be looked into by inspectors. All communication from the IRS was in plain English and inspectors would contact claimants by telephone where appropriate to request further information. Indeed, several group members commented that clients understood and responded well to communications from the IRS – it was sometimes the first letter regarding their social fund application that they had properly understood.

The IRS had the following results for the year ending March 2003:

• 62% of Community Care Grant decisions which were reviewed were overturned.
• 39% of Crisis Loan decisions reviewed were overturned.
• 9% of Budgeting Loan decisions reviewed were overturned.

The figure for Budgeting Loans is so low because the 2001 regulations designating priority (by a system of points) had removed most of the discretion from the system. It was generally a straight-cut decision about whether there was entitlement and sufficient priority or not.

Sir Richard also highlighted that the IRS has tight turn-arounds for processing reviews. Most reviews are carried out within 12 days and procedures are in place to allow urgent crisis loan reviews to be undertaken in 24 hours.

Issues
One of the main issues for the IRS was that so few social fund decisions ever reached the independent review stage. The 25,000 reviews handled by the IRS per year represented only 2.2% of initial refusals by Jobcentre Plus. The small number of reviews taking place formed part of the reason for the IRS's role in publicising claimants' rights.

Further issues included:

• Jobcentre Plus staff refusing to give claimants social fund application forms. The IRS received feedback on this from many organisations and raised it regularly at liaison meetings with the DWP.
• Recent problems with tax credits – Susan Drew noted that local decision-makers were referring clients back to the Inland Revenue to pursue their claim as they considered that tax credits represented an alternative source of funding to meet the need. Therefore this course should be exhausted before a Crisis Loan could be issued. This had historically also been a problem in relation to social work payments. Ann Greenshields noted that, firstly, claimants have to be allowed to make an application regardless of the circumstances of their claim. Secondly, alternative funding must actually be available before it can be used as a reason to refuse an application. This means there should be a clear indication that the payment will be made and that it will be made in time to avert the crisis in question. This applies equally to resources – eg. a claimant should not be refused a Crisis Loan for food because there is a local soup kitchen unless it is clear that the soup kitchen will be able to meet the need.
• Local budgets – Chris White highlighted that social fund decision-makers were often under great pressure to protect their small section of the budget. This led to over-zealous consideration of applications. Even at internal review stage, there was less budget pressure as a bigger budget picture was considered. Sir Richard emphasised that social fund Inspectors also have to take into consideration local budgets when reviewing decisions – it was a common misconception that they did not. However, they sometimes found that decisions were made on the basis that the national budget was overspent, when in fact their was an underspend in the local budget (or it was at least meeting expected need).
• Priority – another budgeting issue in relation to the social fund was that there was a tendency by decision-makers, when there were budget overspends, to designate what should really be high priority cases as lower priority and refuse payment on that basis. The correct position in law would be to give the claimant high priority and then refuse payment because of demand on the budget. This approach also allowed documentation of the fact that current budgets were not meeting all high priority cases.
• Attitudes – Danny Philips suggested that there might be a reluctance on the part of some welfare rights officers to pursue social fund reviews. The attitude stemmed from the fact that a successful social fund application could be viewed as simply moving resources to one client while depriving another. Benefits claims in general were about maximising income for all. Sir Richard noted that one way to get resources increased was to pursue reviews. Evidence he had given to a recent select committee investigation highlighted that there were not sufficient resources to meet all high priority payments. As a result, the Government has agreed to put an extra £15 million into the Community Care Grant budget over the next two years.
• Telephone access – Abi Bremner noted the increasing tendency within the DWP to move to telephone contact with clients. While this was good in some instances, there could be problems with access and with getting a record of what was discussed. CABx had reported problems getting through to the telephone application line for Crisis Loans, which was the only way to apply for Crisis Loans in some parts of the country. Ann Greenshields noted that one advantage of the legislation which empowered Crisis Loan applications by telephone was that it required that an application was followed up with a written decision letter. Under the previous system, many applicants had only received informal, verbal notification.

MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed. Several points of action were noted. In particular, it was agreed that Judith Paterson and Chris White would liaise over the production of a monitoring form for the current DLA/AA application form trial taking place in Glasgow and the west.

INFORMATION EXCHANGE

Bank arrestments
Abi Bremner updated the group on the issue of bank arrestments. The DWP had confirmed that Post Office card accounts would be subject to bank arrestment. It was their opinion that benefits lost any protection from arrestment once they had been paid into a bank account. An official response had not yet been received from the Inland Revenue in relation to tax credits, but it seemed likely that they would hold the same views. The Scottish Executive was also committed to dealing with the issue of bank arrestments and benefits in their review of the law of debt recovery. However, it was not yet clear what they intended to do or what their timescale was.

It was agreed that we would approach Mike Daily (Govan Law Centre) to speak to the group about bank arrestments – specifically about the law, tactics for getting money released and proposals for reform.

Case law
It was noted that the Secretary of State had appealed the Hinchy case to the House of Lords. The case dealt with the obligation to inform the DWP of changes in circumstances which affected benefit entitlement.

The Gillies case (dealing with EMPs sitting as medical members in disability benefit appeal tribunals) was scheduled to be heard in the Court of Session at the end of October.

Judith Paterson also highlighted another case which dealt with fair hearings at tribunals. The specific issue was where a tribunal member has sat in other tribunals with the EMP who wrote the medical report. The case also covered the issue of objecting to a tribunal on the grounds of impartiality. (Case reference CSDLA 444/02).

Pension Service
Susan Drew reported problems with the Pension Service office in Motherwell. There were difficulties getting through on the telephone as well as problems with decision-making. She had tried to arrange some sort of liaison but the manager had not been keen. Alice Jarvie highlighted that the training systems in place for new Pension Service staff did not lend themselves to a good telephone service. New staff were answering telephones while more experienced staff checked their work.

GPs
Problems were also reported in relation to GPs issuing medical certificates. In one case a GP had refused to issue a certificate in relation to IB, stating that it was the DWP's job to decide whether or not someone was fit for work. In another case a GP was reluctant to issue a certificate for a young (in relation to income-based IB for those under 20/25) client with clear mental health problems. The group agreed that GPs had a clear obligation to decide whether to issue medical certificates under their NHS contracts. Taking the matter to the local health council or NHS trust was suggested, as was approaching the DWP's medical services division.

Residential Allowance
Chris White noted that the first letters had gone out informing claimants of the intention to abolish Residential Allowance. In most cases, claimants would have received a social work assessment and any additional costs would be met from the social fund budget. However, the letter may still cause them distress. In a few cases, it may be possible that there would not already be any social work involvement. The DWP had stated that claimants in this position would receive personal visits to explain the changes.

Highland Advice and Information Network
Susan Drew agreed to circulate to the group HAIN's six monthly update on forthcoming changes to benefits provision as well as a summary of the changes to hospital benefits announced in the budget.

Free school meals
Judith Paterson noted that the Scottish Executive has now stated that it will follow England in the qualifying criteria for free school meals – ie. in receipt of CTC but not WTC with an income less than £13,230. This will allow students to be included. However, the Executive has not yet legislated to cover this – but they have issued guidance to local authorities advising them to passport on this basis now.

There is no legislation as yet on passporting to free prescriptions and dental treatment although the Scottish Executive say that in practice claimants are being passported in Scotland in the same way as in England. Claimants who have not yet been issued with an award letter for WTC should be able to use a previous award letter for WFTC. However, some dentists and pharmacists are refusing to accept this because the award has expired.

Consultations
Judith also highlighted two consultations of relevance to the group.

• The Social Security Advisory Committee were consulting on regulations to introduce the pathfinder pilots for Standard Local Housing Allowance – the replacement for Housing Benefit. City of Edinburgh Council would be piloting the proposals in Scotland. The consultation was available at www.ssac.org.uk (under 'Current Consultations').
• The Government was also consulting on whether mothers who have taken more than the statutory period for which SMP is paid (ie more than 6 months) maternity leave should qualify for WTC and therefore childcare costs before returning to work. Evidence of the hardship caused to mothers in this situation was needed. The consultation appeared in the Budget Report 2003 (Chapter 5, para 5.34).

CPAG
Danny noted that CPAG would be publishing a booklet on students and social security benefits for Glasgow City Council. They had also received Scottish Executive money to conduct research into why those from low income families faced barriers in accessing higher education.

Danny also highlighted the CPAG Welfare Rights conference taking place at Glasgow Caledonian University on Friday 20th June.

FUTURE ISSUES

As well as a speaker on bank arrestments, it was agreed that it would be useful for the group to hear something about Housing Benefit reforms. It was suggested that it would be useful to have an academic or someone from Shelter as well as a Government speaker to offer a contrasting view.

DATE OF NEXT MEETING

The next meeting will take place on Thursday 25th September at the CPAG Scotland offices in Glasgow.

Back to the Scottish Social Security Consortium main page

For more information contact:
Judith Paterson
Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland,
Unit 9, Ladywell
94 Duke Street,
Glasgow G4 0UW
0141 552 3303
email jpaterson@cpagscotland.org.uk

Abigail Bremner
Citizens Advice Scotland
Spectrum House
2 Powderhall Road
Edinburgh EH7 4GB
0131 550 1000
email bremnera@cas.org.uk