Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
DWP Doesn’t Want To Hear From You.
Sorry if this has already been picked up on, but has anyone seen this document Personal Independence Payment Claim Process Overview: The Claimant Journey? On the bottom of page five is a list of things that the DWP “don’t need to see” and they include letters from “Family, friends, neighbours, Welfare Rights Advisors”. I find this pretty insulting (flicks hair), but also harmful for claimants. Most peoples’ carers are friends or family, and with LA cuts home-care/support is slowly becoming a thing of the past for most people. Welfare Rights is often where people are signposted towards by services such as social workers and CPNs etc., so a letter from a welf correlating a person’s support needs with their health is often all they get, especially if their health care provider is charging 50 quid just for a print out of their entire medical history.
I’m in a good position because I’m placed within a mental health team and only deal with people using that service, so I have access to SW, CPNs, psychiatrists etc, but not everyone does, and to advise people not to include letters from carers and welfare rights workers seems a little out of order to me. I always include my own letter clarifying and bringing the information together for the purpose of that specific benefit. Supporting evidence should be treated on its content, not on who wrote it. I know there is a pecking order of evidence, but to be so blatant about it. RUDENESS!
Anyway, I wanted a rant. Thank you for giving me that opportunity. Here’s the document:
They don’t want to see letters from advisers as they may draw the attention of the ‘claim manager’ to facts and law. And what use are facts and law, eh????
Lets face it, PIP awards are generally decided following one of their medicals anyway, same as ESA. They seem to ignore anything else initially in my experience
I might as well write “mary had a little lamb” as an answer to the ESA descriptors on ESA50s
for all the good it does : its as if they never read them.
I still put as much info as possible in PIP forms and ESA50s for appeal purposes though as at least tribunals seem to consider them.
Its still a slap in the face though, pretty much saying that carers and advisers should just butt out. Disgraceful
Its still a slap in the face though, pretty much saying that carers and advisers should just butt out. Disgraceful
I think that’s it. You know it happens, but when you actually see it in black and white in all its glory it just shows utter contempt, or at best, complete ignorance towards people like carers and advisors.
On the bottom of page five is a list of things that the DWP “don’t need to see” and they include letters from “...Welfare Rights Advisors”.
I’m with them on that - though I’d hope Welfare Rights Advisers would be fine
(sorry - the creeping use of “advisor” in official publications is a pet hate of mine!)
On the bottom of page five is a list of things that the DWP “don’t need to see” and they include letters from “...Welfare Rights Advisors”.
I’m with them on that - though I’d hope Welfare Rights Advisers would be fine
(sorry - the creeping use of “advisor” in official publications is a pet hate of mine!)
To be fair to the DWP that was me and not them. I often cross pollinate from spending some time in America. Ooops, sorry.
Well I’m in exactly the same seat in sunny Wolvo as you are in Derbs Sharon and every PIP recon I’ve done they’ve done exactly what I’ve told them to do so far so whether they want to hear from me I suspect they’re listening when I say “the attached evidence says x,y,z”
It’s the evidence which I’ve no doubt swings it though.
I can see it up to a point. A letter on its own from a welfare rights worker or even one accompanied by a brief letter in general terms from the claimant’s G.P. is going to cut little ice and will probably be swiftly put to the back of the file. What is of use, of course, is detailed evidence from professionals treating the claimant. Then, a letter from a welfare rights worker drawing out the salient points and tying them together can be very useful, particularly in areas where the law is still developing. What angers people, of course, is the high handedness behind it: a sort of ‘we will brook no interference from the meddlesome advice community’.
What angers people, of course, is the high handedness behind it: a sort of ‘we will brook no interference from the meddlesome advice community’.
Only until we help our clients to sue them; that makes them listen!
Don’t get mad get even.
On the bottom of page five is a list of things that the DWP “don’t need to see” and they include letters from “...Welfare Rights Advisors”.
I’m with them on that - though I’d hope Welfare Rights Advisers would be fine
(sorry - the creeping use of “advisor” in official publications is a pet hate of mine!)
Adviser/Advisor… I think both are acceptable in British English, although in American English it is Advisor which tends to be used. I’m with you though, I prefer Adviser.