My client is the appointee for his mentally ill son who receives DLA, IB and IS. The department have mooted that they wish to end the appointeeship and transfer responsibility for the claims back to the son. My client thinks that mental health workers working with the son might have suggested this to the department as a therapeutic measure to help him start to live more independently.

My client thinks that if the appointeeship ends he still have to deal with all his son's benefit affairs, but that it will be much more difficult keeping tabs on what's happening if correspondence about benefits is sent to the son instead of him.

How would my client best dispute a decision to terminate his appointeeship?

Does this not raise a couple of disturbing issues - firstly, if it were the Mental health team that approached the Department, then did they do so armed with a signed Authority allowing them to discuss the clients affairs - if not someone appears to be breaching confidentiality - Has your client, as the appointee, given them such an Authority to discuss their sons affairs with a third party?

secondly, and with the greatest of respect for Mental health workers in general, who else but the appointee/carer would know best as to what their son can or cannot manage/cope with?

Many of us know from experience the problems that many of our clients with mental health problems get into when claiming benefits in their own right - particularly with renewal claims for DLA - and the levels of stress that it causes....

Rules are in Reg 33 of the SS (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 and clearly state in reg 33(2): "Where the Secretary of State has made ... an appointment under paragraph (1) - (a) he ... may at any time revoke it;".

According to para 5(s) of Schedule 2 of the SS (Decisions and Appeals) Regs 1999 there is no appeal against a decision regarding appointment, and so this appears to be only challengeable by way of judicial review (except by way of revision and supersession), but there are potential vires challenges to that schedule (he says, somewhat glibly). One for the Public Law Project maybe??

Otherwise an appointment is only made if the Court of Protection has not appointed a receiver, so an alternative action would be to go down that road.

Whilst I agree with Mike to a large extent and it goes against my every sinew to support the potentially unneccesary actions of mental health workers (whilst also agreeing that the vast majority do a very hard job well with very limited resources) I think that ultimately there must be a power for a mental health worker to breach confidentiality. (Whilst also pointing out that I am making no suggestion that it applies in this case and I really think I'm going to have to stop putting hedges round this paragraph) A mentally ill client is potentially much more vulnerable to financial and other abuse from their carer than from mental health workers.

An interesting conundrum. It sounds like your client hasn't been approached by the mental health workers to discuss the issue. I wonder why? Perhaps he is a domineering parent who can't let go? Does he feel the need to control his son's life? Is he keeping some of his son's money for himself?

I applaud the attempt of people with mental health problems to live more independently, and I recognise that your client's son is likely to need assistance. Perhaps he has got that assistance lined up already. I suggest that your client requests a discussion with his son and the mental health worker, during which he should practice his listening skills. With his son's permission he could invite you to that meeting, then you could make your own mind up.

If you agree with your client that the situation would be impossible unless his appointeeship continues then I think he needs to contact the DWP and request that a visiting officer goes out to see both him and his son together, and hopefully you could be there too. He could also try to get together any supporting evidence that he can.

Ultimately the decision is out of your client's hands. If the appointeeship is taken away it doesn't mean that it can't be restored in the future. Please encourage your client to understand that his son has the right to make mistakes, he's only human after all. If those mistakes start to become serious than it's time to think again, but in the meantime your client could attempt to be supportive rather than controlling, and perhaps he could try some constructive communication.

The DWP usually requireS medical evidence to the effect that a person is incapable of managing their own affairs, before making appointee. They tend to take the line of least resistence, and aren't particularly fussy about the level of evidence, and mostly this is ok - but it does mean that appointeeships can be made when the person actually is capable of managing. added to which, attitudes change - eg towards learning difficulties. the best way to dispute it would be on medical evidence - IF it is clear cut that the son is incapable. in this case, it sounds unlikely that the issue of competence is clear cut at all.

i'm not sure what you mean by the DWP has 'mooted..'. Can you be more
precise about the position? also, you say that your client thinks it might be because of an approach by mental health workers direct to the DWP, but this is far too vague and unreliable. i would be concerned if they had made such an approach without communicating with your client. perhaps he knows more than he's telling you?

it's very easy to make wrong assumptions in these cases, particularly if you hear only one subjective side of the story. it can be difficult even when you hear both sides.

i had a very sweet and aggrieved CLIENT, living alone, who had social services as the appointee, and he was very unhappy about the financial arrangements, and wanted me to get the appointeeship revoked. if he had learning difficulties they were so mild their existence was debateable, but he was vulnerable, gullible and lonely. i believed he needed 'supporting people' help to live independently in the community, and that there were human rights issues involved etc

i got myself to a case conference with him and got as much gen. as possible beforehand from soc. services, and discovered that he was on the adult at risk register, with good reason. also, i found i could not fault social services for their professionalism and good practice in handling his case. i tweaked the payment arrangements a little, but..

i made a judgement, against my first instincts, that the appointee arrangement was in the client's best interests, to protect him from the financial and even physical abuse from his so called friends and relatives, aware that a challenge to the appointeeship _could_ have been mounted, and the decision not to proceed was not really mine to make, and in making it, i was doing what i would have argued against in the challenge. it's an ethical minefield so you need to be very cautious.

on a different tangent, are you sure the DWP 'mooting' wasn't a DLA enquiry into son's care needs?

jj