Corprate appointees

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
  • #23010

    I have had a request from a Support Provider to become a corporate appointee in a similar way to which I understand the DWP operate at present.

    A senior person in the company, such as a director or company secretary, will become an appointee but will then ‘delegate’ their responsibility to other staff who will, in effect, sign claim forms and notify changes in circumstances etc. etc.

    If the claimant is also receiving another social security benefit they may already have an appointee whom the DWP office have appointed. If they have, regulations allow us to treat that appointee as the appointee for HB + CTB. We do not have to follow the DWP office lead.

    I have reservations about the Provider ‘losing ownership’ of the responsibility for being an appointee – but if the DWP accept it, can we ?? There is also a potential for a conflict of interest here as this Support provider also receives payment of HB on behalf of the RSL landlord.

    Has anyone else come accross this sort of request? Do the Regs permit it – they are almost identical to DWP regs apparntly? If so, does it work?

    All view are welcome.



    I think what you are saying here Colin is that you perceive there may be a conflict of interests.
    HB reg 82, (HB reg 60+ 63) States that the LA may accept a written request as appointee, but we should take into account any conflict of interests between appointee in that role and any other (in your case support provider / rent collector?). Once you have accepted you have to give 4 weeks written notice to terminate.
    As a suggestion, perhaps you should discuss this with the support provider so that the conflict can be minimised or eliminated and they are cetrtain what their responsibilities are. 8)

    Kevin D

    This response will not exactly be surprising to most ppl…..

    I would be VERY wary about accepting someone as an appointee in such cases. There is clear ground for conflicting interests.

    Also, there is a good argument for leaving the responsibility with the clmt – it actually gives the clmt greater protection when things go wrong when it comes to judgement calls in areas such as “good cause” for backdating and “reasonably expected to realise….” for overpayments.


Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.