SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained that Social Security Scotland (SSS) unreasonably delayed in changing responsibility for Child Disability Payment (CDP) when C reported that their child (A) was living with them. C and A's other parent (B) were living apart and A had previously been living with B. However, A moved out of Scotland to live with C. C complained that when this change in circumstances was reported, payments of CDP had initially been suspended pending transfer to C, however, the suspension was subsequently removed and all outstanding payments due before the account was closed continued to be made to B. C complained that B did not make this income available resulting in C and A being negatively impacted financially. SSS agreed that there had been delays in processing the transfer, pending new guidance and processes being put in place. SSS also stated that the transfer of payments to C should have been actioned before the process for ending CDP payments was completed. Nevertheless, SSS stated that their statutory duty was to make payments for A, which they fulfilled, and that any dispute over how the CDP payments were distributed between the two parents was a civil matter. Additionally, they considered that there was no evidence that A was not benefiting from the payments during this time. We found that B had confirmed their agreement for the change in responsibility and that payments to B had initially been suspended only for the suspension to be subsequently removed with no reasoning recorded. We found that there were delays due to lack of formal SSS guidance being in place. Additionally, it was evident that conflicting information and communication received from C and B should have raised concerns about whether A was benefiting from the benefits income intended for them, and there were missed opportunities to give clear advice to both C and B. Additionally, SSS had acknowledged that they should have processed the change in responsibility before processing A’s move out of Scot

C complained that Social Security Scotland (SSS)'s handling of their transfer application was unreasonable. C received Disability Living Allowance (DLA) which was administered by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). C’s condition had deteriorated significantly since their assessment for DLA and made enquires about how to report this. C understood that they were to submit an application to SSS (who were assuming responsibility from DWP for administering disability benefits in Scotland) to transfer from DLA to Adult Disability Payment (ADP). It took more than six months for SSS to identify that C had followed the incorrect process, despite C attempting in the intervening period to check up on the progress of their application. When the correct process was explained to C, C requested a copy of the form they had submitted but they were told that this would require a Subject Access Request. This caused a further delay. Ten months after the form was originally submitted, SSS wrote to C with a transfer outcome letter. They stated that C’s ADP needed to be reviewed and enclosed a paper form for completion. This caused significant distress to C, who had submitted the same form ten months earlier. C complained about the SSS's handling of their transfer application. We found that SSS did not give sufficient consideration to C’s circumstances when maintaining their position that C followed the wrong process. We considered that SSS should have identified that C’s application had been submitted incorrectly at the time of receipt. SSS could then have signposted C appropriately to DWP. Therefore, we upheld C's complaint. We welcomed SSS’s decision to make an ex-gratia payment to C during our investigation, in recognition of a missed opportunity to identify the incorrectly submitted claim and calculating C’s award from that time. In response to our decision, SSS agreed to make a further backdated payment to the date the documentation was received by SSS.

C complained about the service that they received from Social Security Scotland (SSS) in relation to a backdated disability payment. C accidentally gave the incorrect bank account number and the payment was paid into the incorrect bank account. While C contacted SSS to inform them that they had not received the payment, SSS did not action C’s concerns and despite C’s attempts to contact SSS, they did not receive a response. We found that SSS provided incorrect information to C about the backdated payment process and reassured C that the money would, ultimately be returned to them. We also found that they failed to check the full account number when C alerted SSS of the missing payment, that they failed to follow guidance, that they failed to return C’s calls and provided an unreasonable level of service and that they unreasonably delayed starting the payment trace (although an earlier trace would not have guaranteed that the payment be returned). We upheld this complaint.

C complained about delays in Social Security Scotland switching their child (A)’s payment of Child Disability Payment (CDP) to their bank account after A moved in with them. Social Security Scotland continued paying Child Disability Payment to C’s ex-partner and did not process the change for over three months from the date that C notified them of the change. C complained that as a result, A did not receive payment of Child Disability Payment for over two months. We found that when C reported that A was living with them, Social Security Scotland told C that they were working to get a process in place for these changes and that they would progress C’s request and would contact C. However, they did not do so for over two months until C followed this up. We found that Social Security Scotland unreasonably delayed in changing responsibility for CDP. We upheld the complaint.