More Jersey Social Security appeal mysteries explained...

Social Security Appeals

We at SSTAG have posted before on the mysteries of the Social Security appeals process – mostly as it relates to income support applications.

Further enquiries are still proceeding and it is likely to be a long job but the ultimate aim would be for a guide book to the whole of the Social Security system written in plain language.

Of course it is patently wrong that income support appeals are initially dealt with anonymously by the same officers of the Social Security department that make the initial decisions. This cannot be considered to be a fair and impartial system and as we know only too well, the information actually given with decisions is often painfully inadequate.

Thus we hope that more applicants (YOU) will demand a fuller explanation of any decisions made and the supportive reasons, data or figures that have been used to support it.

Without this information it is often impossible for an applicant to know whether there are grounds to appeal at all. There are also time limits for making an appeal which can be impossible to satisfy if further explanations are sought by the applicant.

Unfortunately it is not unusual for Social Security staff to refuse to give their names over the counter, ‘phone or even on letters – so the applicant does not know who made an initial decision or whether a different person has reviewed it!

We have been asking questions about the appeals procedures. On a previous posting we explained that appeals from internal appeals of Social Security and Medical Board decisions are heard at special Appeals Panel Tribunal hearings run by the Employment Tribunal, 1st floor, Trinity House, Bath Street and are supposed to be OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

Unfortunately nobody except the appellants seem to know when they are taking place but we are hoping that changes will be made soon to publish details beforehand.

The responsibility for the administration of these appeals was taken over by the Judicial Greffe in 2010. Since then there have been a remarkably low number of appeals actually heard which suggests that either Social Security applicants are remarkably happy with the decisions made or do not know how to make an appeal….

This year (2012) there have been 22 appeal applications against Social Security decisions. Just 8 have so far resulted in hearings, 5 were resolved by Social Security, 3 withdrawn or rejected and 3 more are currently waiting for hearing dates.

We shall be asking for notice of those 3 or any other hearings that take place soon in order to attend and learn how they are conducted.

As a result of our enquiries so far we understand that the process of reviewing the procedures of the Appeals Panel is currently under way and the indexing of completed hearings is “one area that will be revised.”

This is especially necessary for any applicants trying to discover details of previous decisions appealed against and decisions made.

Of course, we at SSTAG do not expect to receive any acknowledgment or thanks from the Social Security Minister or Department for our efforts – but we are sure that improvements will be initiated soon in this archaic process. We shall keep on monitoring the position…

We have been assured that the procedures of the Appeal Panel are in line with a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights on accessibility of Tribunals to the general public.

To demonstrate compliance with the ECHR we have been previously advised that a plaque will be placed outside the Tribunal Offices listing the individual Tribunals that sit there and to use the Website to advise of forthcoming hearings…

Snail Mail

CICRA (the Channel Islands Competition and Regulatory Authorities) are proposing new quality of service targets for Jersey Post.Whilst it is admirable that CICRA want to ensure that 95% of local mail is delivered on the next working day, SSTAG believes that the actual time of the delivery is more important.

SSTAG has received many complaints about the late delivery of mail from the most vulnerable section of the community ie. those people whose only source of income is their weekly Social Security cheque. Pensioners and recipients of incapacity benefit have to survive on a very tight budget and even Mr. Micawber couldn't make their money stretch to an extra day because their cheque was not delivered until 3pm. These people are having to cancel medical appointments because it is impossible to guess what time of day their mail will arrive.

Any public service company must have contingency plans to cover staff sickness or any unforseen disruption to normal service. Unfortunately, Jersey Post has reduced staff levels to such a degree that their delivery service is no longer viable.

CICRA and Jersey Consumer Council are interested in views from the public on the service they receive from Jersey Post.

SSTAG would like to hear your comments and experiences with Snail Mail.

JT and IT and why so many in Jersey are being left behind

JT (Jersey Telephones) is supposed to be a publicly owned business run for the benefit of the Jersey public and the Social Security Department is supposed to be a department of the Jersey government run for the benefit of the very same public.

However it is becoming ever more obvious that there are many different views on what “benefit” actually means and the definition of the term “public” also seems to be obscure.

It seems that “profit” has now been substituted for benefit and consumer for public so far as these two entities are concerned…

The recent JT decision to switch off telephone system X and encourage the use of super powerful new fibre-optic options is all very well but the extra costs involved are being passed on to the public under the all embracing USER PAYS regime that now dominates every service provision – whether public or private.

Already one private Jersey user has launched a web-site or blog to address the costs implications because his IT bills have risen so steeply.

Imagine then the problems that are being caused to people on very low incomes, or without bank accounts – or no access to a telephone line of their own (yes – there are actually people who live in accommodation where a land line is not an option!) or having serious impairments etc etc.

Of course these tend to be people who as “consumers” will not generate much income or profit for JT and so they are not a priority sector.

Besides which, the cost of constantly up-dating or replacing IT equipment or learning new skills is beyond many people.

Yet IT and electronic communication is now an essential part of life. It is not a luxury to own a computer and more and more facilities and access to information can only be obtained “on-line.”

Listening to the likes of Treasury Minister Senator Ozouf with his enthusiasm for an all electronic IT future is especially worrying. He seems only to be able to consider the needs of business – the practical problems that arise for the general public do not seem to be “on his radar.”

Mobile phones, dongles and other cash paid up-front arrangements might be the preferred solutions for some with cash to spare and the ability to use them but for many these are neither accessible nor affordable.

As with the phasing out of cheque books, it seems that business efficiencies in pursuit of profit trump all other social needs or considerations.

We have contacted both JT and the Social Security Minister Senator Le Gresley and raised these problems but they have hardly responded with great enthusiasm or any offers to change the existing systems. Complacency seems to be the order of the day and we will next be contacting the JT Regulating body to see if anything might be done from there.

JT do offer reduced charges already for land-line use by some Pensioners. Why can’t these be extended to other users and for other services? Where is the social responsibility of JT?

As for the other States Members, as always, we would welcome any offers of help or suggestions about improving these matters.

For the record, we e-mailed Senator Le Gresley on 23 August and again on 18 September enclosing copies of our previous correspondence with JT;

“In view of the very poor general public take-up of the new enhanced Internet access options it is obvious that even people with ample cash and/or abilities are finding this not acceptable. I note that one consumer in this category has started some sort of on-line protest.

So far as those with very little cash, no bank accounts or limited IT knowledge are concerned, this ever increasing push for electronic communication is very worrying.

Senator Ozouf said at Scrutiny yesterday that he will be announcing a new push towards IT use soon but it will inevitably be intended primarily for businesses or people who have financial and other resources.

I repeat my previous concern that many people are being left behind and disadvantaged.

IT is no longer a luxury item – it is an integral part of everyday life and I suggest that your department must be prepared to assist those on Income Support etc to participate.

So what can you do about this?”

Senator Le Gresley, the former head of CAB (Citizens Advice Bureau) in Jersey but now the Minister at the Social Security Department responded;

“The household component, with income support benefit, is the component that we would have to consider increasing. We have just increased this component by 3.5% so the next review will not take place until June 2013.

I will take into consideration this exchange of e-mails at that time.”

We at SSTAG do not consider this to be a sufficient response and as already indicated we will be contacting the Regulator with regard to JTs social obligations.

If anybody has any practical suggestions with regard to Senator Le Gresley we shall be pleased to receive them.

JERSEY BUS PASSES - do we need them?

Bus Passes – what next?

We asked Deputy James Reed for an interview about the Interim Scrutiny Report on Housing Transformation but he has not responded. So here are some thoughts on Bus Passes to consider instead. If you have any further information on existing or proposed policies – please make contact with SSTAG

When Connex are replaced by the new Bus operator next spring – what will happen to bus (aka travel) passes?

Currently persons who have paid 40 years or more of Social Security contributions can apply for a free “Senior Citizens Travel Pass” which permits free travel on scheduled services. In practice this policy says that men must be 63 or older and women 60.

All residents of 65 or over are also entitled to a pass.

It is not proposed to change this policy at the present time – but there are plans to make the minimum age to be 65 for men and women (whether retired or not) “in about six years or so.”

Clearly the current age difference is discriminatory.

There is a further element of discrimination by virtue of the 1974 Social Security Law and an Act of the old Defence Committee in the 1980s which gives a slightly different status to persons “born in Jersey”. This is also considered as not compliant with Human Rights standards but neither the

Social Security Department  

President Senator Francis Le Gresley tel 445505  f.legresley@gov.je

nor the

Transport & Technical Services Department (TTS)

President Deputy Kevin Lewis tel 85723 or O7797 717982  k.lewis@gov.je

are keen to broadcast the facts.

Some Health Insurance Exception (HIE) travel passes are also issued on an annual basis.

This scheme is now closed to new entrants.

Passes can be issued to persons who held an HIE travel card on 27 January 2007

BUT

If an HIE pass was allowed to expire before 27 January 2008 and not renewed, it will not now be re-issued.

This policy was made at the time when Income Support was introduced by the Social Security Department. It had been intended that a “transport component” should be part of Income Support after 2008 but this was rejected by the States.

It is possible that HIE passes will be withdrawn when the new bus operator takes over in April 2008.

This also seems to be a discriminatory policy.

Jersey public transport is also falling behind standards that apply in the UK and elsewhere where many stroke victims and/or disabled persons receive transport passes, as do ex-service personnel.

The continuation of the HIE bus passes scheme will have to be fought for in the States.

There are other oddities in the Jersey system which may be also need to be lobbied about.

For example, children only travel free up to the age of three years (four year olds must pay) but the age is five years in the UK and disabled children are not to be free of charge until they reach the age of 65. Surely this cannot be right?

Seems that we might need test cases to challenge the Jersey system on several issues.

Any volunteers?

Homeless or home more in Jersey? Charity or right? Power or Green at the edges?

Deputy Power was Housing Minister briefly two years ago and he had announced virtually all the proposed reforms that Deputy Green has subsequently outlined.

So the reforms had been kicking around for some time and even Deputy Le Main was singing a similar song before he was removed from this same office and he had been there for years and years….

What is surprising about all this is that whilst everybody who has been in charge of housing for so long claim to have identified the problems and have come up with virtually the same solutions – NOTHING ever actually happens.

Thus we now have Deputy Power speaking on behalf of the hundreds of “homeless” people in Jersey in the name of Shelter or the Sanctuary Trust. But why did he not promise to solve the problem when he was Minister and why are his demands apparently different now from those of Deputy Green? Are they any different in fact?

When the Draft new Island Plan was being reviewed by the two UK Inspectors – Deputy Power was asking for the Housing Policy part to be removed until the Census statistics had been properly assessed. His request (and I asked for the whole Draft Plan to be withheld) was ignored and we are now stuck with an Island Plan that will never ever solve Jersey’s immense housing problems.

That cows are more deserving of land than people is still the basis of the Island Plan.

The needs of the homeless will never be addressed under the Plan – these are just to be left to charitable whims as always in the traditional “Jersey way”. Deputy Power seems to support that charitable response.

Unlike other countries – there is no legal obligation to house anybody in Jersey.

The 1949 Housing Law actually exists to prevent people from occupying or buying housing accommodation. It is this perverse policy that has underwritten all others for emotional reasons based upon a bogus “Jersey born first” idea. But in practice it just serves to starve the natural housing market of funds and suppress new house building.

Yet 20,000 people with housing quals live outside Jersey – what does that say about 60 years of the Housing Law in “action”?

Cows rule OK!

Deputy Power now complains that one of the reasons for so much homelessness is the high cost of homes to rent. So nothing very new there – yet the whole basis of the absurd revised Housing plan proposed by Le Main or Power or now by Green is to RAISE so called social housing rents to be as near as possible the same as already absurdly inflated “private rents”.

This problem does not just affect the homeless of course. It affects everybody who has to rent accommodation and it is now officially accepted that there is no such thing in Jersey as AFFORDABLE property to buy.

How on earth have we got into such a mess and why are our elected reps so incapable, decade after decade, of solving the problem?

It is not just the cost of property either. The standard of much States “social” housing is poor and it is part of the declared new plan to “regulate” to improve this. But MOST housing is in the private sector where rents are highest and standards often lowest besides which petty restriction are sill imposed against children or pets and there is lack of security of tenure for many.

WHY are we the public still waiting for basic reforms in these areas and why do we no longer have a Rent Control Tribunal?

Deputy Green keeps telling us that his Housing White Paper will appear soon.

It will no doubt be yet another PR opportunity for Senator Ozouf et al to say how well off we all are etc (whilst he continues to extract over £20 millions of “social” rents each year to squander at Lime Grove, Ogley’s pay off and suchlike) but it will certainly NOT offer any escape from Jersey’s housing problems for most residents of Jersey.

Make no mistake we are gripped by a User Pays, cost cutting obsessed government that has no motivation to house the whole population properly.

SSTAG will be continuing to investigate all these matters and more in the coming months. So stay tuned but most of all JOIN US! Give us your support and spread the word that such unfairness can and must be challenged.

SOCIAL SECURITY FOOD COSTS BONUS 2012 explained

The application form from the Social Security Department for the FOOD COSTS BONUS and/or COLD WEATHER BONUS for 2012 explains that it is an annual fixed payment of £218.36p which is payable to HOUSEHOLDS who satisfy certain conditions. The rules from the Income Support Law are used to decide who is included in a household.....

The form lays down WHO CAN CLAIM
a.....
b....
c The household is NOT RECEIVING INCOME SUPPORT.....
   OR
   The household IS RECEIVING A TRANSITIONAL INCOME SUPPORT PAYMENT.....

We at SSTAG thought this meant that households who receive a TRANSITIONAL payment (therefore are qualified for the BONUS payment)  would most likely also be receiving INCOME SUPPORT so would  NOT be qualified  for the same BONUS.
BUT we were confused - what does it really mean?

Senator Francis Le Gresley, the SOCIAL SECURITY  MINISTER has responded to our questions and responded as follows;

"The words have remained unchanged since the GST Food Costs Bonus was introduced in 2008.

Transitional Income Support is payable where a person is entitled to receive a protected payment of one of the previous States' funded benefits, for example Disabled Transport Allowance or Housing Rebate when Income Support was introduced in 2008.
These payments have not been increased by the rate of GST therefore anyone receiving a transitional Income Support payment can receive a Food Costs Bonus.

However where a person is receiving Income Support without a transitional adjustment their payment has been increased in line with the GST percentage and are therefore NOT entitled to a Food Costs Bonus.

Persons who are receiving a transitional Income Support payment will find this information in their Award Letter issued by the Social Security Department."

We at SSTAG suggest that if in doubt you 'phone the SS Department on 445505 but since that Department must know everybody who qualifies for this Bonus payment already from existing information on their files then they should just award the payment automatically. Why send out yet more forms to fill out and cause worry to people who read in the JEP that Francis Le Gresley is determined to prosecute everybody who commits fraud etc?
Once again the Form carries the usual WARNING:
"Any person who knowingly makes a false statement or false representation commits a crime for which they may be prosecuted and they may also be required to repay any amount of benefit overpaid."

BUT how many people are frightened off by such warnings and outbursts from the Minister so that they do not even bother to claim for payments and awards to which they are fully entitled? Why does every communication from the Social Department have to be laced with dire warnings and threats of prosecution?

Surely it is time for the Social Security Minister to come clean and publish details of ALL payments that are knowingly not being claimed  and what he proposes to do about it? And why does so much information published by his Department have be so difficult to understand - even by those for whom English is a first language?

If you have trouble with this Bonus or any other aspects of Social Security administration please let us know at SSTAG.

SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL HEARINGS ARE PUBLIC

Following enquries made to the Social Security Department we have received the following important guidance regardings Appeal Hearings - they are OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
This also applies to Medical Appeal Hearings and follows on from efforts to let the public know when INQUESTS are being held and that they too are usually OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

Click on image of letter to enlarge.



Full details of how the States will let the public know when these most important hearings are taking place is not yet clear.
Inquest hearing dates are still only published on the "TV" screen within the lobby to the main States/Court building in the Royal Square. Of course, they should all be on-line and published in the "Gazette" in an ideal world but Jersey is only just waking up to the realities of its Human Rights obligations.

That there might be a list of previous decisions made of these various hearings is most important but of course, unless there is an index with details of the subject matters decided upon, they might not yet be of much use.
The same problem arises with Complaints Boards aka Review Board decisions. There is no proper archive or index of all cases heard to date but PRECEDENT is the very soul of a proper legal system and ADMINISTRATION by government departments should be fully transparent and accessible too to everybody.

THIS IS A START. If you contact any of these Departments seeking information about hearings from the past or in the future - please let us know how you get on.

We are also asking questions about the strange words and phrases used by the Social Security Department and whether they have any meaning in law and also about the supposed "time limits" for making appeals, the repayment of "overpayments" and the reimbursement of "underpayments" etc.

If you have any details from past experience - please contact us at SSTAG......


UPDATE and FURTHER INFORMATION on the Appeals process (8 August)
We have received a further response from Caroline Coleman at the Judicial Greffe on behalf of the Registrar (Mrs Cave) at the Jersey Employment Tribunal (which handles Social Security appeals).

She advises that there is no mailing list to advise the public of future hearings and there is no plan to start one. Anybody interested in attending a future hearing must contact the Registrar and enquire.

How they might be supposed to know how a hearing is imminent is not obvious! We have asked to be notified of any hearings due over the next 6 weeks.

She also advises that during the past 2 years or so there has not been an appeal where the Social Security Department's internal appeals procedure, their calculation methods or the meaning and interpretation of words has been challenged.

Obviously it is about time that such challenges took place but we have now asked about the authority of human rights arguments in the appeals process and how fairness might be achieved if details of previous appeals decisions are not adequately archived and indexed. We will keep you informed HERE.

Keep your queries coming in please - we don't publish any details that might identify you without your specific permission.