Appendix L:
Letters and notifications

Background

The content of a notice of determination is prescribed in Schedule 6 to the Housing Benefit/Council Tax (General) Benefit Regulations respectively. The Schedules contain a number of requirements and the 2 are broadly similar.

Findings

Thanet uses both computer-generated letters and standard pre-printed proforma letters.

The computer-generated letters are produced overnight and are dated 4 days in advance. Dating letters in advance gives the benefits section time to intercept letters if necessary and allows for any delays in the post. Although we do not consider this to be good practice, we acknowledge the need in view of the problems detailed later in this appendix.

On the day we examined the computer-generated letters the quality of print was poor. Some of the words were difficult to read, as the print was very faint in a vertical line on each letter.

We found that the benefits section has to intercept certain letters, including overpayment notices, and amend them manually if they contain incorrect information or information relating to another claimant as a result of faults in the current computer system. Thanet expects that the new computer system will solve this problem, but it is unlikely to be introduced for nearly 12 months. We were told that in the interim Thanet’s IT department may be able to resolve the problem and ensure that correct letters are produced. Although staff are aware of the problem and know which letters to intercept, we consider this is a waste of their time and that the handwritten amendments to the letters must give a poor impression to people who receive them.

Paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 requires that all persons affected shall receive notification of their right ‘to request a written statement under regulation 77(4)’. That right is that a person may

by notice in writing signed by him, request the authority to provide a written statement setting out the reasons as to its determination.

Thanet's notice of determination says:

If you would like more information about how your benefit is worked out, please write asking for a detailed statement.

This does not explain the right correctly, nor does it describe the full procedure, which is that the request must be signed by that person, nor state where the request is to be sent (a reference to the address at the top of the letter would suffice).

Paragraph 3 states that persons affected must be notified of their right to review. Thanet uses different wording to tell claimants of their right to appeal in the notices for new claims and the notices for initial assessments, re-assessments and cancellations. Thanet's notice of determination for the latter group says:

If you think your benefit is wrong, or you disagree with the rent set by the Rent Officer, you have the right to appeal. You must write to the Council within 6 weeks of the date of this letter stating the reasons why you think it is wrong.

This is too narrow. It implies that the claimant only has the right of review in relation to the calculation of the benefit or to the amount of rent set by the RO, when in fact the claimant has the right of review of any matter.

The wording for notices for new claims says:

If you disagree with the decision about your claim, you have the right to appeal. The decision will be reviewed providing you write to the Council within 6 weeks of the date of this letter stating the reasons why you think it is wrong.

This more correctly widens the scope of matters on which the claimant can appeal. We suggest that Thanet also includes details of the address to which the claimant should send the letter by adding ‘at the address stated above’ after ‘Council’, in order to comply with paragraph 3.

Currently most of the benefits staff in Thanet do not have access to word processing facilities, so most standard letters are pre-printed. The benefits assessors and benefits assistants fill in the gaps left in the letter manually. Unless these letters request complex information, Thanet does not keep copies of them on file, but relies on the person sending the letter to record on the case history sheet details of the type of letter sent.

Neither the computer-generated nor the standard proforma letters use clear English and they contain abbreviations, for example, ‘calculated’, ‘your maximum benefit entitlement is therefore’, ‘make written representations’, ‘no. of people’. The determination letter sent following a review or a change of circumstances includes the following sentence: ‘If you have been overpaid benefit another letter will be sent to you with details of the overpayment’. The overpayment letter is actually produced at the same time and sent with the notice of determination.

Thanet receives claims for HB and CTB from asylum seekers and has developed a standard letter to request specific information from them. We found that the letter is not as clear as it could be, particularly as it is sent to people whose first language is not English.

We were told that because claimants find the notices of determination difficult to understand they often contact Thanet with questions. We find that this is distracting benefits assessors from their primary task of processing claims for HB and CTB.

Conclusions

Although the Benefit Regulations specify that certain information should be included in all notices of determination, this need not be at the expense of clear English. Thanet should consider taking professional advice to make sure its letters are easy to understand and contain all the information required by law. This would reduce the amount of time staff currently spend explaining the existing notices to claimants.

Thanet's failure to keep copies of notices of determination and other correspondence on individual files is poor practice, for the following reasons:

• it deprives Thanet of evidence for internal reviews and review board hearings
• it makes the use of section 75 of SSA(F) 1997 difficult
• it makes claimants’ enquiries more time consuming and increases the possibility that incorrect advice will be given.