Have I missed something here?

We help several people every day to make CL claims. Due to difficulties getting through to the all-singing-all-dancing Crisis Loans telephone team, we have been downloading application forms from the net and getting clients to present these at the local JC+ for faxing to the Crisis Loans office. As of today, we have had several people return with little slips of paper giving the phone number and stating that applications must be made by telephone only.

Is this right?

I thought the forms were still "legal tender"?

They are - they are lying to you and to the applicants.
It is an age old practice known as "send 'em away, maybe some of 'em wont come back?".
As Tonto always said "DWP man speak with fork tongue".

I really thought that the message was beginning to get through to local offices .....
Letter of complaint to the district manager - copy to local office manager - pointing out that clerical claims cannot be refused under claims and payments regs etc - ask under which reg they feel they have the power to turn a claim away - if still getting no where - or no prompt reply, ask for address of the regional director.

The Social Fund (Applications) Regs 1988 - as amended state: -

Form and manner in which an application is to be made

2.—(1) "Except in the case of an application referred to in regulation 2A,". Every application for a payment out of the social fund under section 32(2)(b) of the Act (payment to meet needs other than in prescribed circumstances) shall be made in writing, on a form approved by the Secretary of State and completed in accordance with the instructions on that form, or in such other manner, being in writing, as the Secretary of State may accept as sufficient in the circumstances of any particular case.

(2) Forms of application shall be supplied, without charge, by such persons as the Secretary of State may appoint or authorise for that purpose.

(3) Every application shall be delivered or sent to an appropriate office.

Reg 2A amended the original regs to allow for claims to be made by phone but, as is evident, reg 2 retains the right to make a clerical claim.

As Mike says, the message should be getting through by now. The situation is just not good enough.

And, dont forget, the SSAC are looking for examples of this practice.

Agree.

I thought we had cracked this one some time ago..could I be forgiven for thinking this is some sort of childishness because we won a case at IRS last week which (it seems like) the whole local CL team had played a part in, and all swore blind that their initial decision was right (fairly clearly wrong.. but that's a whole different point).

Sheer buffoonery. I feel a complaint coming on. One of those offending slips of paper might also find it's way into the hands of the SSAC as well.

Mike, C and P Regs don't apply to Crisis Loans as they are not a 'benefit' for which a 'claim' is made. SF directions apply here. I do agree that forms should be issued on request though!

Judith

SF directions do not apply. Reg 2(2) of the Application Regs (above) apply and the reg is mandatory as indicated by the use of the word "shall".

Regards
Paul

30 - 15. New balls please!

I said that Claims and Payments Regs didn't apply, not that SF Applications Regs didn't. 30 all?

C'mon "Tiger Tim" - your service!

If I might just throw in a little supplementary info:

When clients ask for forms, they are handed these slips of paper which explicitly state that claims can be made by telephone only. The 3 claimants that attended our centre with this issue yesterdayhad all been initially told that the forms we provided them with were not acceptable. One of them subsequently had the form accepted, the other two we don't know about yet, although we expect to see one of them tomorrow about another matter.

Typically it takes at least 40 minutes to get through to the crisis loans team on the number provided. They only accept applications from people who have made a claim for benefit from which SF loans can be recovered, and we have only twice succeeded in getting them to issue written decision notices in nearly 18 months.

On several occasions, we have helped people to make telephone applications , which they appeared to take. They agreed to call the claimant back with a decision, and the person has left our building, only to return later or the next day, having been refused a loan. When we subsequently phoned back we were told that there was no record of the claim, and that the officer might not have entered the claim onto the system if they knew that it was going to be refused.

I think people could be forgiven for questioning the integrity of the service in these cases.

Maybe I'm just an old cynic.

Is this the Bristol processing centre we are talking about ?

Morning all; This is probably where I get censored?
Truth is, the SF - like a great deal of the benefits revamping, is now designed for the articulate, transient claimers (those nice people like Worcester Woman and Essex Man who determine elections, we are led to believe).
They have an internet connection at home; they have time to use a 'phone in their centrally heated homes. They don't make a lot of use of a Crisis Loan anyway.
No, the street dwellers, the recently released/ discharged, the addicted, the mentally ill - they don't vote anyway, so why should a politician - of ANY political hue - give a toss about them.
Instead, our colleagues in the DWP are bullied, cajoled and "restructured" into this system, and given scripts which would embarrass Paul Abbott and his excellent Channel 4 series "Shameless" (how apt!), and are forced to be "economical with the actuality" or lose their jobs.
We all know that if a hundred applicants are treated this way, only 50 will return or take advice at best, therefore an instant 50% saving.
If anyone can convince me I'm cynically wrong, I'll buy them lunch in Cardiff!
Go on, make my day ......

Judith

We all pay for looseness of language in this game, myself included (too many times for comfort if I'm honest). And to be fair I know that you did not say that the Application Regs do not apply but it is incorrect to say that the SF directions apply as these deal with eligibilty.

Procedural rules for dealing with claims are laid down in regulations. Clarity is essential otherwise confusion reigns, resulting in the refusal to give out claim forms because DWP officers don't know the regulations, or as is often the case, don't even know that the regulations exist.

Regards
Paul

OK Paul, I give in! I did mean Regulations and not Directions - honest!Nuff said.

Denying access to SF crisis loans, other then by telephone, to a significant minority of vulnerable people in the name of efficiency and cost saving is not acceptable, nor is it legal.
JCP london keep saying that all local offices should carry and make available claim forms upon request - the use of phrases such as "only in exceptional circumstances" etc will not be found in any regs, but are being used in various guidances - is it any wonder that staff at the grass roots are not sure of the legal position.....

The IRS have produced a very useful Q&A factsheet called 'Crisis Loan Myths' and includes advice about myths such as:

- you must be in receipt of benefit to claim a crisis loan;
- you may only apply for a crisis loan by telephone;
- JSA claimants must attend a WFI before they can be considered for a crisis loan.

We give out loads of these to clients and send them back to the jobcentre. If they come back to us again (which is very rare) we make a complaint.

I recommend getting hold of the factsheet (although it might be part of a larger document as the two pages are numbered 10 and 11...) from IRS. They also have a named worker taking evidence about crisis loan problems, although I'm not sure if that's still ongoing - probably worth giving IRS a call to let them know.

TB

"Mythbusters .... A number of myths have grown up about the Social Fund over recent years. Many people believe these to be legitimate limitations on applying for or receiving Social Fund payments - but they are not.

Don't be caught out by the myths - read on."

http://www.irs-review.org.uk/irsreview/myths.htm

wasn't this the sequel to "Ghostbusters 2" ??

I should add that.. if you look at my locality,the claimant was "Worcester woman".

The office concerned is in Telford, not Bristol. In days gone by, I would have initiated a social policy campaign in the locality. However, in this centre, at this time, there is only one benefits adviser, and I'm rushed off my feet with the day-to day enquiries and a handful of tribunals.

Just to update, I have initiated a complaint, which has been forwarded to the JC+ regional head of communications. I'll update when I have further news.

Well, no come-back from the officer concerned yet, but another development today which has really got me spitting feathers!

My colleague sent someone away from our public drop-in session today with a completed CL form to be submitted to the local JC+. The client returned later, severely dischuffed.

They had initially been told that the forms were no longer acceptable, but when they insisted, the officer on the front desk said they would accept it, but would not offer an interview to the client, and would post it on to the CL office ( now in B'ham, I believe), not fax it.

I have no knowledge of how angry the client got, but they came back for further advice, then went back to JC+ a second time and weren't allowed into the building.

My colleague then phoned JC+ to try to challenge the refusal to accept the form and the refusal to offer an interview, and was told that it was no longer the practice of JC+ to accept paper forms.

I wonder. Would JC+ allow US to change regulations that we found inconvenient, or is this a luxury they retain for their use only?

Mr Angry from Worcester.

Is this the same office as before Neil, Telford?

I have recently had a bit more luck with my local office by sending clients with their CL claim forms and a copy of the claims and payments regs, with the relavent parts highlighted, attached to a copy of my business card...strangely they have all been accepted!

Mike: Crisis Loans moved to Birmingham recently.

SLloyd: Good tactic. I'll maybe give that one a try.

The Social Fund Commissioner would like to hear of these sort of problems. It would be worth sending the correspondence to him and also notifying JCP that you have done so. Address on p1416 of CPAG Book: Sir Richard Tilt, Social Fund Commissioner, Independent Review Service, 4th Floor, Centre City Podium, 5 Hill Street, Birmingham, B5 4UB.

Another tactic (I have done this in the past) is to write to DWP solicitors pointing out that refusal/failure to accept claims is unlawful and that JR action could be taken. A Pre-action Protocol letter on this would focus a few minds. Aside from the legislative basis for accepting paper claims, it can be argued that there is an implied administrative law duty on the DWP to accept paper applications.

About 20 years ago Camden Council was successfully judicially reviewed for restricting how homelessness applications were to be made (R v Camden LBC ex p Gillan (1988) 21 HLR 114 - High Court decision), so the same principle may well also apply to DWP and apply in situations in addition to not accepting paper claims.

Having to threaten judicial review about claims shows just how bad things have become.

Having recently enjoyed the visit of Richard Tilt at our offices in Cardiff, I can vouch for Neil's comments about his concerns. He seems genuinely disatisfied with this ongoing issue and took copious notes of all our complaints.
Splott Paul

Neil and Paul, thanks for that. I will follow up on that information.

I'm now providing a letter detailing the regs as described above to everyone who comes to us for help with getting a Crisis Loan. Clients are still returning to us, however. Some are still getting point blank refusals to accept the application whilst others are being told that their application will be taken from the local (Worcester) JC+ to the Crisis Loans office in B'ham by courier. The courier leaves at the end of the working day, so claimants have no chance of any decision being made on the day of application.

As soon as I have a little time I will amend the standard letter to include a further statement about that, and maybe generate another pro-forma to enable them to make complaints (obviously requiring action by JC+ staff) just by adding their personal details, a date , and a signature.

Getting seriously riled by this now.

Incredibly, and frighteningly, this phenomenon is not restricted to the DWP.

I know of two LAs who are INSISTING that HB/CTB claims are made by telephone. Both are refusing point blank to issue claim forms.

One of the two LAs then INSISTS on a visit to get the form signed and obtain supporting evidence. If further evidence is still needed, the LA only "allows" 7 days before "closing" the claim down. By "closing", this means a decision is made and adverse inferences are drawn. And, unsurprisingly, that LA's stats look damn good.....

Separately to the above, another LA tries to insist that non-working clmts MUST claim through JC+ (i.e. CMS) and won't always issue forms at the counter (personal experience and, coincidentally, raised on the HB/CTB forum).

A couple of years ago, there was an LA in Scotland that INSISTED potential clmts visited their office to be interviewed before issuing a form (this was also raised by another poster on the HB/CTB forum). I don't know what the current state of affairs is in this case.

Legislation? What's that for?

Regards

Legislation is for flouting, violating, malfeasance, unlawfulness, maladministration and abuse of power! You know, like common-law recovery of legally non-recoverable overpayments and the threat of court action.

Without legislation, and the the failings around it, thousands of advice workers, solicitors, public servants, etc, in publicly paid for jobs, would be all unemployed and claiming JSA.

So therefore, by continuing such flouting, violating, malfeasance, unlawfulness, maladministration and abuse of power, the loss to the public purse by the funding of the advice and legal sectors is offset by the gain in reduced benefit claims and increased income tax revenue. So you see, it all makes perfect logical sense to have legislation.

When I first started in advice work, I always thought that I should be working towards to redundancy; that one day soon, everything would work the way it's supposed to - but that was just silly day-dreaming - we'll all get nuked before that ever happens!!

Disclaimer: tongue-in-cheek

Private Eye magazine once had a great line:
"The middle classes of England won't take this lying down!
They'll sit up and whine about it!" . . .

We attended a Regional consultation committee yestrday, along with assorted CAB's, SS depts, etc., attended by various persons from DWP, JC+, HMRC, DBC, etc. Apparently, some Social Fund applicants are made to go out of the JC+ office to use a public call box, right outside the JC+ office, to make their application! Don't want the poor cluttering up the place, do you?

Hmmmmmmmm . . .