Scottish Social Security Consortium

Minutes of meeting 28th September 2004

Present:
Abigail Bremner Citizens Advice Scotland
Alex Scottish Refugee Council
Craig McKenzie One Plus
Lee Oliver Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland
Judith Paterson Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland
Susan Rew One Parent Families Scotland
Derek Sinclair Contact a Family
Jo Whitfield The Action Group

Apologies::
Jim Pearson Alzheimer's Scotland
Susan Drew Highland Advice and Information Network
Stephanie Millar Update
Chris White Scottish Association for Mental Health

Introductions
Judith welcomed everyone to the meeting.

Tax credits

Abi started off by outlining some common problems currently being experienced in Citizens Advice Bureaux:

• End of year overpayments – Overpayments had not been as much of an issue as had been expected. However, it was suggested that this was because people simply did not understand the letters they were receiving from the Inland Revenue and therefore weren't challenging overpayments when they could be. There was more protection for those with end of year overpayments than there had been for people who faced recovery during the year – only 10% (IS/JSA claimants) or 25% (those with awards above family element); 100% for those on family element only – could be recovered. However, this was worked out by subtracting whatever had been paid in provisional payments (from April to whenever a finalised award was determined) from the year's entitlement, then deducting 10%/25% from what was left. This meant that a number of people were being paid significantly less than 90%/75% of their underlying entitlement.
• Hardship – Members noted that the official form for challenging an overpayment (available from www.ir.gov.uk or contact Lee) did not mention anything about hardship. However, the Code of Practice on overpayments mentioned this as a consideration. Judith noted that an attempt to use hardship grounds to challenge an overpayment may simply lead to the Inland Revenue recognising the hardship and deferring recover of the overpayment until circumstances improve. An income and expenditure form (such as used by money advisers) should accompany any request relating to hardship.
• In-year recovery – The Code of Practice on overpayments had been changed to allow top-up payments in relation to in-year recovery as follows:
  * If you are on IS/JSA and your payment falls below 90% of entitlement – top up to 90%
  * If you are on full WTC and/or CTC or you are receiving a disability element in WTC and/or CTC and your payment falls below 75% of entitlement – top up to 75%.
  * In other circumstances (but note exceptions on P4 where top ups will not be made) where your payment falls below 50% of entitlement – top up to 50%.
  Note that these arrangements are less generous than in previous years.
  
• Complaints/appeals – Members noted that if you made a complaint in order to challenge a recovery decision, it just disappeared into the system. Helpline operators could give no information as to what stage it was at. It appeared to be with a separate section. Lee recommended that anyone who was having problems with a decision should appeal. Appeals were still possible where there was an issue of entitlement. As the Inland Revenue gave so few details about cases, it was almost always possible that there was a mistake in relation to entitlement. The Inland Revenue was set up to look at appeals before they went to tribunal to try to resolve them, so clogging up their system with appeals was the best way of drawing their attention to problems.
  
• Wrong advice – Bureaux had reported a number of examples of wrong advice, both to clients and to advisers. This appeared to be an on-going problem for the Inland Revenue and was probably down to lack of experience of staff. However, it was concerning that this was still an issue 18 months after the launch of tax credits. It was worrying that people were getting the wrong advice. However, it also meant that it was well worth challenging the Inland Revenue on the matter - if a client claimed to have been given wrong advice from the helpline, then there was every chance that they had. CPAG noted that they too were monitoring advice from the helpline.
  
• Problems for IS/JSA claimants – New IS/JSA claimants had to claim CTC as well. There was a fast track system in place between the DWP and Inland Revenue (an 'e-portal) to enable claims. However, it was not clear if all JC+ offices were using these. Bureaux had reported instances of it taking weeks (five weeks in one case) for claims to be processed.
  
• Dealing with advisers – The Inland Revenue's system for dealing with third parties was still creating problems for bureaux and making it significantly more difficult to resolve clients' problems. A PIN number system had been introduced to enable faxed forms of authority to be sent to the Inland Revenue in emergency situations. However, Abi had had no feedback about how this was working. There was still no solution to the problem of the client who phoned an agency for advice – all the Inland Revenue could suggest was that a mandate form was posted out to them, posted back to the agency and then sent to them! Abi was of the view that the Inland Revenue had not put sufficient effort into resolving these issues, and was losing the support of advisers as a result.
  
• Evidence report – Citizens Advice Scotland was producing a joint report with Citizens Advice (England and Wales) highlighting clients' experiences of tax credits. The report would look at the whole process – from claiming, to dealing with the helpline, to overpayments and challenging decisions. It was hoped that the report could be launched in a joint seminar with the Inland Revenue, but it was not clear at this stage whether the Inland Revenue would agree to this.

Lee Oliver then introduced himself as CPAG's new tax credit project worker. He had worked as a welfare rights adviser in a number of places in Scotland and England. The purpose of the tax credits project was to maximise clients' incomes. He intended to develop training and leaflets as well as a second tier advice helpline for advisers.

He noted that the development of the project depended very much on the needs of the groups he was working with and encouraged everyone to feedback to him about the sorts of information and support that would be useful for them and their organisation. Lee noted that the project was intended to reach beyond the normal users of CPAG's helpline. The real challenge was reaching low income working families as most welfare rights work was targeted at IS/JSA/IB recipients. Another key target was those without children who were working.

• Overpayments – The current mantra seemed to be that you couldn't appeal an overpayment decision. However, the actual situation is that you can't appeal a recovery of overpayment decision – but you can appeal the decision on entitlement that led to the overpayment. When dealing with a client's case, it was often impossible to know anything about the entitlement decision – so Lee's recommendation was to appeal.
• Renewals – Lee noted that the deadline for returning renewal forms was 30th September. Anyone who had not returned at least estimated income details by this point would lose entitlement and face recovery of anything that had been paid to them so far in 2004/05. He noted that the Inland Revenue had been heavily advertising this deadline, so they were clearly concerned that there were people who had still to return their forms.
• Migration – There were a lot of rumours going around about when migration to CTC for IS/JSA claimants would start. Lee had spoken to a few people in the Glasgow area. In the Shettleston office, they had been told that it was likely to happen in May 2005 for their area. However, on contacting a more central authority, he was told that no confirmed dates were available yet as the matter awaited a ministerial decision. Lee had been told that migration would be a three stage process:
  * 'Clerical clients' would be first – these are clients for whom the DWP still has a paper (rather than a computer) record, apparently because their case is in some way 'difficult' eg. they are getting a social fund deduction or direct payments.
  * JSA claimants would be next
  * IS claimants would be last

He was also told that each individual claimant would have a different migration date (rather than migration being carried out in area-based blocks). Claimants would be given an 'end-date' – by which point their claim would have moved on to CTC. This date was meant to be a safe date – ie. the transfer should happen before that point.

Susan noted that there was a £10 premium on payments from the Child Support Agency (ie. the parent with care got to keep an extra £10 of the money, rather than having it all deducted from their benefit entitlement). However, this was only currently available to 'new' cases (those dealt with under the CSA new rules and those on CTC). Migration would make all IS claimants eligible, so the delays were meaning that single parents were missing out. Lee noted that claimants could elect to claim CTC rather than an IS child premium at any point – and this was perhaps the best route for single parents still on full IS.

Susan also raised the issue of payments of tax credits from local Inland Revenue tax offices. Was it still possible for these offices to issue emergency payments? No one was sure on this point, although Abi noted that all the direct numbers had been changed, making local offices very difficult to get hold of.

Derek noted that the Inland Revenue was making the assumption that children were leaving school at 16. A lot of payments had recently stopped for this reason. What the Inland Revenue is doing with CTC is the opposite of what happens with CB – where they write out to ask whether a child is staying on in education.

Derek also noted that getting a backdated payment was difficult. Backdating for three months was perfectly possible (with no requirement to show good cause for not claiming) and it should be as simple as making the request. However, since there was no space to do this on the claim form, a separate letter had to be sent. Jo highlighted that there were also problems around the computer system, which seemed to read the date the claim was received as the date a claimant started work – making it difficult to get the information for a backdated WTC claim accepted. Susan stated that she had been (wrongly) told by the helpline that backdating was discretionary. Craig pointed out that the Inland Revenue had been backdating claims automatically when they were first introduced, but this had created overpayments in some cases.

Lee's advice was to appeal the decision not to backdate – as a perfect example of a decision which was actually an entitlement decision. He further noted that the Inland Revenue had systems to ensure that each appeal was reviewed before it went to appeal (basically a system which works like the DWP's reconsideration process should work), where they would look again at decisions and negotiate with claimants. The technical manual for Inland Revenue staff currently just states the regulations. This is in stark contrast to what was used by DWP staff, which lists numerous Commissioner's decisions which define the law in different areas. It was important to start getting some precedents in place in relation to Inland Revenue procedure.

Minutes of previous meeting

These were agreed. Two action points were highlighted:

• Michael Collins at the Scottish Refugee Council had agreed to write a skeleton letter to the Scottish Executive highlighting the lack of Scotland-specific guidance on asylum issues. This could then be used by the consortium as well as individual member groups. Alex agreed to follow this up with Michael.
• Abi Bremner had agreed to provide information about the Legal Services Trust to Michael. Abi explained to the group that the Legal Services Trust was a fund set up to pay lawyers' costs (but note this meant incidental costs such as travel and photocopying rather than their fees). It was administered by the Law Society of Scotland, and trustees made decisions on applications which were put to the trust. This was therefore a potential source of funding for test cases. However, there were other issues to be considered before proceeding, such as potential liability for costs for the person pursuing the case. Abi also noted that the trust had not had many applications. They therefore might be prepared to consider applications which included lawyers' fees.

Information exchange

• Atos Origin seminar – Abi highlighted to group members that Atos Origin (formerly Schlumberger-Sema, the company contracted to do DWP medical examinations) were organising a seminar in Scotland which would cover their quality assessment process for medical reports and future training for doctors on myalgia conditions (muscle pain). Members were invited to attend. [Note that the date is now Thursday 4th November, 10.30am-4pm, in Glasgow].
• CSA interviews – Susan highlighted problems for clients who had to have CSA interviews in relation to their IS claims (when a claim for maintenance would be required to be made through the CSA). Previously, the Jobcentre would do the interview in claimants' homes. However, it now appears that some areas are requiring claimants to attend the office for the interview. This can be very inconvenient as well as delaying a claim. The client in question lived in rural Aberdeenshire, making it very difficult for her to attend an office.
• Entitlement to uniform grants and free school meals – One Parent Families Scotland had been doing research into local authorities' policies on the above. It seemed to be that some local authorities were offering one or the other. Judith noted that legislation had been passed which meant that offering free school meals in relation to those on CTC was a requirement, not something open to local authority discretion. CPAG intended to place a parliamentary question on this issue.
• Holohan Case – A recent Commissioner's decision has held that S76 (2) of the General Housing Benefit regulations 1987 is 'ultra vires'. This regulation states that a local authority does not have to make a decision where insufficient evidence and information has been provided. In practice, this means that claimants who have not provided the evidence required by their local authority are not given a decision at all and therefore cannot appeal. Under the decision, once local authorities have reached a stage where they believe that they are unlikely to get the relevant evidence from the claimant, then they must issue a decision to refuse housing benefit. Because the tribunal has held that the regulation is 'ultra vires' – ie. beyond the powers local authorities have - it applies to all previous cases where a decision has not been made for the reasons outlined.
• Telephone claims with JC+ – Jo highlighted the problems the telephone claims system was creating for Action Group clients – who all had high support needs. Anyone claiming through the Bathgate office was required to use the phone claim system which involved:

* An initial phone call where personal details were taken and the claim registered. An arrangement was also made to phone the client back to fill in the rest of the claim.
* A second phone call where the rest of the claim form was dealt with.

The person on the end of the phone had no expertise in the benefit, which meant that they were not able to provide clarification on tricky issues. The system also requires that claimants have all their information to hand to pass on over the telephone. This was difficult for Action Group clients as a support worker had to be there to help them deal with the telephone call and, if information was missing, the whole process had to be abandoned. The old paper system, where you could just stop until the information was available, was much better.

• Double SDA payments – Jo also noted that a number of claimants had received a letter from the Castle Terrace DWP office (Edinburgh) which implied that they had received a double payment of SDA. This was not in fact the case – clients were not getting extra payments. However, an additional statement about SDA appeared at the bottom of the letter by mistake. It was clearly confusing to clients.
• Benefits for Students in Scotland Handbook – the second edition is due out in the week beginning 4 October 2004. CPAG is seeking funding to enable them to continue to produce a separate publication in Scotland. In addition, they need to sell more copies to make it viable. CPAG would welcome any help organisations can give in publicising the handbook.
  ACTION – JP to provide fliers to SR at One Parent Families Scotland.

Topics for future meetings

Back to work benefits – pilot Jobcentre Plus initiatives; back to work issues for vulnerable groups. Speaker - ask Glasgow Caledonian University's Scottish Poverty Information Unit. They are conducting a research project and preparing a training course on these issues.

Benefit claims processes – especially new telephone claim procedures. Speaker - ask JC Plus.

Date of next meeting

Next meeting is on Monday 22 November 2004 from 1 pm to 3.30 pm at CAS offices in Edinburgh.

Meeting dates for 2005 are to be decided.

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