application to be an appointee

Hello,
This might not help, as it’s guidance if the appointee claims another benefit on behalf of the claimant - but maybe you could refer to the existing appointee decision for PIP or forms BF56/BF57 in the journal? UC should be able to check CIS.
Or - and we use this for a lot of queries as the UC phone service/escalation to case manager is often inadequate - via a local Jobcentre complex needs/vulnerable claimants inbox if you have those details?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/procedures-for-dealing-with-agents-appointees-attorneys-deputies-and-third-parties/part-5-appointee#existing-appointee-claims-another-benefit

Existing appointee claims another benefit

5307. Where an existing appointee claims another benefit for the person he represents you must first confirm that he is the appointee before deciding the claim. There are three ways you can do this:

i. Check CIS/CIS to confirm that he is the appointee for the other benefit. See below, but this should not be used in isolation without taking the further step of.
ii. Asking the existing benefit section if they have the BF56 to hand. If yes, ask for a copy to be sent. If not because it has been sent to Heywood then, finally,
iii. Ask the appointee if he has his BF57.

If ii and iii are not available then, unless you have doubts about the truth of his statement that he is the appointee or doubts about the said incapacity of the customer, you can use the CIS record as confirmation and decide and pay the claim accordingly. You must make a note of the steps taken to verify the appointeeship.

5308-5349.

Evident staff training need and would benefit from watching their UC video for claimants!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8zJD7z-TSE

Image Attachments

Click thumbnail to see full-size image

UC staff not following their own guidance….? I’m shocked

thanks everyone for your responses.  I don’t know what’s happened with UC but they seem to have gone from bad to worse with their knowledge at present! i’m still waiting for partnership team to update me on this specific case and the process, and hopefully raise this as a training issue.  I will update the thread if I get anything useful.

OK - ive just had a call back from DWP and can report that the process is exactly as I thought.

I have been told that the reason they have to check suitability for appointee for UC even if it is already in place for legacy benefits is that they need to check that the appointee understands the digital process and responsibility.

However, if they can see that there is already an appointee for other benefits when the claim is made an ‘agent led process’ should be instigated to start the appointee process.

If a person later needs an appointee, someone can contact UC or put a message in the JNL and this should again start the process off.

There is no form or other means of starting this via .gov. As 2 employees have now told me this, the issue will be cascaded down as a training issue to raise awareness of the process.

thank you to all who has contributed