Problems with administering changes in circumstances

In our interviews with Income Support recipients we tried to identify whether some changes in circumstances caused particular problems for them (see Chapter Five). We were also interested in the same question from the perspective of Income Support staff. What emerged from our interviews and discussions, however, was a slightly different picture. Although some types of change were inherently more likely to cause additional work, any case which caused processing staff any extra time and effort was identified as a problem. The reporting and non-reporting habits of claimants were often cited as the root of the problem. We examine these first.

6.3.1 Problems generated by claimants' reporting practices

There was a general feeling among the processing staff interviewed that the majority of changes in circumstances could be processed on the information supplied by the claimant without the need to make further enquiries. This is reflected in the high percentage of cases cleared within the target of two days in all three offices visited. (Performance targets and their impact are discussed later in this chapter.) Nevertheless, staff in all three offices commented that a frequent cause of additional work was

incomplete reporting by claimants. A common omission was the precise date on which

the change being reported took place.

Collecting further information was not necessarily difficult for staff (for example, a simple telephone call was often all that was required) but always added to the time needed to clear a case. Sending a letter to a claimant or third party was also usually straightforward but often led to a case taking longer to process.

Another type of incomplete reporting occurred when a claimant experienced a number of changes together but did not report all of them. A commonly cited example was a claimant changing address. When a claimant moves there is no direct effect on the level of their Income Support award (although there may well be changes to Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit). However, if their household composition changes at the same time their Income Support will almost certainly change. If this is not reported the wrong award will be in payment, possibly for a long period.

In addition to incomplete reporting, Benefits Agency staff commented that late

reporting and failure to report changes, for whatever reason, were also common. Late

reporting occurs when changes are notified by claimants themselves or someone acting on their behalf but only after a long delay. By contrast, failure to report is identified when a third party notifies the Benefits Agency of a change or it comes to light in the course of a routine review of a case. However, in both instances adjudication officers must reassess the claim possibly weeks or months after the date of the change. An under- or overpayment is frequently the outcome. Processing the actual change in circumstances may not generate any additional work for Income Support assessment

sections (for example, if a backdated award of extra benefit could be made) but work may be created for the overpayments section and possibly the fraud staff.

Late reporting of changes which leads to loss of entitlement inevitably creates an overpayment. An example is when the partner of a claimant begins working for more than 16 hours a week, as one Income Support officer explained:

. . . so they'll send us a letter, "My wife's started part-time work". A nd when

you find out it's 21 hours, you have to say well I'm sorry but you're not due anything. And you've been overpaid.

Although a failure to disclose may have fraudulent intent, the staff interviewed also felt that there was widespread ignorance of some changes that need to be reported such as the 16 hours rule cited in the example above.

An example of a delay not caused by the need for more information is the recall and

re-issue of order books, a common problem in all the offices visited. Until the

introduction of performance targets, retrieving order books from reluctant claimants would not necessarily have been construed as a particular problem for office staff. Now any case which takes longer than five days reflects badly on the performance of the office regardless of the cause. Nevertheless, staff fully understood the reluctance of some claimants to return their order book when requested since any delay in replacing it could leave them with very little, or no, money to live on.

6.3.2 Problems inherent in some changes

Apart from the problems caused by aspects of claimants' reporting behaviour, which could occur with any change in circumstances, some changes had their own inherent difficulties. Part-time earnings was the most frequently cited example because they often change. Some staff considered that they generated disproportionate amounts of work compared with their effect on Income Support awards.

Staff were particularly critical of the regulations which required them to terminate an award of Income Support when the hours worked by a claimant exceeded 16 in any one week even though their normal pattern was for less. The work involved in terminating and reactivating a claim and the inconvenience caused for the claimant seemed unnecessary. One Income Support officer explained the problem in the following way:

If there's a recognised cycle, let's say they worked 12 hours for five weeks and then in the sixth week they worked 18 hours, you would do a recognised cycle over a period of six weeks and average their hours out to say 13 and a half or whatever they might be. W hich would keep them on the books continuously. But if it's just that odd one where they do constantly 12 hours and then all of a sudden they've worked 24 hours one week, you would really have to terminate the claim and re-start it again.

Changes in mortgage payments also cause problems for staff because they are often reported late by claimants, or not at all. The effect is that payments of mortgage interest which go direct to the lender are incorrect for a time, thus causing either an under- or overpayment which has to be rectified. This is not necessarily a problem for the claimant since under the mortgage direct arrangements the transfer of money is between the Benefits Agency and the lender. In practice, though, lenders often pursue the claimant if interest payments from the Agency are not altered quickly which can generate time-consuming enquiries from often anxious claimants.

The social security rules concerning hospital in-patient stays vary across different benefits and hence can create a series of problems. An Income Support officer explained the difficulties:

Hospital cases are so difficult because, I could get A ttendance A llowance, after four weeks A ttendance A llowance is withdrawn. If it's Income Support, a

retirement pension and they're a single person, after six weeks their Income Support is reduced to what we call a hospital pocket money rate which is I think is now £11.95 or something. But if they've got retirement pension, the retirement pension doesn't get reduced to get that amount, it gets reduced by twice the hospital pocket money rate. So you're ending up . . . four weeks . . . persons get A ttendance A llowance taken away, six weeks they're not entitled to Income Support but we have to pay the retirement pension at a lesser rate. So .. . there's overpayments and underpayments and sometimes a person dies in the middle of it. So, hospital cases, not a lot of people like them .. .

The problem was mainly with old people who were the most likely group to be in hospital for long periods. Staff felt that few knew the rules and were probably not in any condition to be bothering about their entitlements. The office usually heard from a member of the family, neighbour or hospital social worker. They appreciated the rationale behind reducing the Income Support for in-patients but were concerned that the rules `could add unnecessary worry for them'.

6.4 Pressures and demands on Income Support processing