UC phone access

One of the main reasons we need to use implicit consent is the length of time it takes for the phone to be answered.  It is not practical to sit with someone - in our case on a home visit, on the ward waiting 20/30 minutes for the phone to be answered. Apart from anything else, our clients often can’t cope with long visits.  But I don’t imagine any advisers can afford this time.  I’m not quite sure either how three way calls will work from hospital beds.  So practically I think this means that the only way I can assist some of my patients is to hope they are well enough to to log on and put the right wording to give explicit consent on their journal and then call later. 

Do we know if there is any kind of time lag on the consent being added to the journal i.e.  - what is the likelihood of us getting client to log in add the consent and then ringing straight away.

I’ll pass back your comments Ash. In the meantime once it is input on the journal they said the person on the helpline should be able to see it - so in theory it should work but please let me know if it doesn’t

Seems lots of people are having to long waits on the phone.  Thought I would post the following link to sign up to the mailing list for escalation contacts, our service very rarely uses the public routes to contact DWP.
http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/9756/

It looks like they want the uploaded UC consent looks to authorise a specific person, rather than an organization. That’s not going to fit very well with our model, which is: no funding for dedicated caseworkers, we have a supervisor and a team of volunteers who only work certain days. Something along the lines of HMRC’s TC689 would be better [edit - which does call for a named caseworker, but in practice they deal with our office].

Owen Stevens - 25 January 2017 11:32 AM

Seems lots of people are having to long waits on the phone.  Thought I would post the following link to sign up to the mailing list for escalation contacts, our service very rarely uses the public routes to contact DWP.
http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/9756/

We’ve not found the UC escalation points to be as helpful as the legacy benefit ones.

Sure, we don’t have too much experience of using the UC escalations.  See Corin’s post for a couple of suggestions if DWP are completely against keeping implicit consent.  I’d be really interested to hear what advisers think of those suggestions, anyone got any comments?
http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/10478/P30/#49110

APA’s (Sorry, in Northern Ireland we are about to roll out UC from Sept - just becoming familiar with the abbreviations)

“Alternative Payment Arrangements (APAs) are available for claimants who can’t manage the standard Universal Credit payment.

There are three types of APA available:

direct payment of the housing cost element to landlords (known as managed payments)
splitting of payment between members of a couple
more frequent payment of benefit.”

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/541512/pbs-and-apa-guidance.pdf

Owen, in response to Corin’s suggestion of having some kind of system where advisers could register as bona fide advisers, and then get some form of access to view for specific issues and specific periods of time is a good idea.  If there is a plan for a ‘landlord portal’ then surely this is something along a similar line.  It would need to be not overly bureaucratic whilst also preserving the principle of security of the accounts which is DWP’s priority.

Similarly, thinking about your work on ‘Safeguarding’ there perhaps also needs to be some way for professionals to ‘log’ concerns or information with DWP about a claimant and in relation to that claimant’s UC without the claimant giving explicit consent, if those concerns relate to safeguarding the claimant and it is not possible to do it any other way.

Sorry for being dense - when DWP say a “3 way phone call” - do they mean like a conference call or are they happy with the one phone being passed from rep to claimant and back - or put on speaker if it has that facility?

My understanding is the three way call is for when you and your client are in different places - if the client’s with you it shouldn’t be a problem passing the phone as you do now - so the client answers the security and then passes to you.

Thanks Daphne - so that means setting up a conference call when the client is not with you. I presume this can be done with mobiles as well as landlines? Sorry - not very technically adept!

if the client’s with you it shouldn’t be a problem passing the phone as you do now

A poster earlier in this thread was advised by UC that they could not go through security with the client while the advisor was in earshot.
Maybe if we promise to stick our fingers in our ears?

mycatismo - 27 January 2017 11:08 AM

Thanks Daphne - so that means setting up a conference call when the client is not with you. I presume this can be done with mobiles as well as landlines? Sorry - not very technically adept!

I believe so - but maybe something I need to go back to them on including costs which might be incurred - I’ll fire off an email…

Cheers Daphne

20 minutes on hold.  client has put a note on their online journal…...wouldnt speak to me.  not the process apparently.

From today’s Guardian:

New rules restricting MPs from intervening with officials directly to resolve benefit payment problems on behalf of constituents are a major barrier to justice, ministers have been warned.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has told MPs it will not discuss individual universal credit cases with them unless the claimant has given formal “explicit consent” by issuing detailed instructions via their online DWP account.

MPs said the restrictions will create a fresh layer of bureaucracy and pile extra pressure on vulnerable people who have approached their MP as a last resort to resolve problems such as non-payment of benefits.

More: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/04/curbs-on-mps-helping-benefit-claimants-are-a-barrier-to-justice

Good news for MPs?

Constituents bring lots of problems to the attention of their MP, and ask for help to resolve them.  But how many times have you contacted the relevant agency only to be told “Sorry we can’t give you that information, because of the Data Protection Act”.  Infuriating, isn’t it?  Especially since they are, in many cases, wrong.

http://www.w4mp.org/2016/10/12/data-protection-and-elected-representatives/

Looks like MPs will be allowed implicit consent but still not advisers or social landlords -

After complaints from MPs, who called the rule a “major barrier to justice”, it is expected the DWP will issue new guidance on Thursday clarifying that elected representatives can access universal credit information on behalf of claimants.

However, it is understood that welfare advice workers, council staff, and landlords trying to resolve universal credit issues will still need to obtain explicit consent before being allowed to access information on behalf of clients.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/09/rules-stopping-mps-helping-benefit-claimants-scrapped

(and a little mention ;) )

Daphne - 09 March 2017 02:49 PM

it is expected the DWP will issue new guidance on Thursday clarifying that elected representatives can access universal credit information on behalf of claimants.

Can I have your autograph?

Am I right in thinking that this will not just mean MPs?

The Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) (Elected Representatives) Order 2002 stops any public body citing the Data Protection Act 1998 as a reason why it cannot respond to a request from not only Members of Parliament, but also:

An elected member of the National Assembly for Wales
An elected member of the Scottish Parliament
An elected member of the Northern Ireland Assembly
An elected member of the European Parliament elected in the United Kingdom
Elected members of a local authority within the meaning of section 270(1) of the Local Government Act 1972[4] namely
(i) in England, a county council, a district council, a London borough council or a parish council
(ii) in Wales, a county council, a county borough council or a community council
An elected mayor of a local authority within the meaning of Part II of the Local Government Act 2000
The Mayor of London or an elected member of the London Assembly
An elected member of
(i) the Common Council of the City of London, or
(ii) the Council of the Isles of Scilly
An elected member of a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994[6]
an elected member of a district council within the meaning of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972[7].

Some of those may be more accessible and useful in practice.

The 2002 regs would also seem to cover “a person acting with [the] authority” of an elected representative

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/2905/made

shawn - 09 March 2017 03:50 PM

The 2002 regs would also seem to cover “a person acting with [the] authority” of an elected representative

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/2905/made

Well spotted.  That presumably was meant to cover MPs’ caseworkers but ...

Doesn’t help us humble welfare rights workers though.

Please Sir, just a crumb, that’s all I need…..

The Information Commissioner’s Office is consulting on draft consent guidance in relation to the new General Data Protection Regulation that will apply in the UK from May 2018, replacing the Data Protection Act 1998 ....

.... have started a new thread on the consultation over at http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/10992/

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK - 09 March 2017 08:47 PM

Doesn’t help us humble welfare rights workers though.

Please Sir, just a crumb, that’s all I need…..

If you worked for a LA then “a person acting with [the] authority” of an elected representative” could be a humble worker looking at a specific case, or even generally authorised by councillors.

Gareth Morgan - 10 March 2017 01:33 PM

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK - 09 March 2017 08:47 PM

Doesn’t help us humble welfare rights workers though.

Please Sir, just a crumb, that’s all I need…..

If you worked for a LA then “a person acting with [the] authority” of an elected representative” could be a humble worker looking at a specific case, or even generally authorised by councillors.

So local authority welfs might be covered but not those working for HA’s or Cit A or Age UK etc?

Good to see Daphne quoted in the Guardian!

Hopefully the risk of all of us referring ALL of our cases to the MP to resolve may prompt a more sensible approach?

On a different but related topic, the UC Full Service system went ‘down’ on Friday during my appt with a client, so I was unable to resolve a fairly major query - why wasn’t he paid last month when his online acct says he was, and will he be paid today?  I was asked to phone back in an hour.  I went back in an hour (client is currently unable to leave the house due to illness) and the phone lines were engaged.  Query unresolved, but the man is being looked after by family, thank goodness.  I just think their conception of how this works with everyone on their smart phones simply logging back in later on .... and the actual real world of people and front line advice are million miles apart.

I note the system was also ‘down’ on Thursday for an hour.  How can they justify a system upon which payments for vulnerable people rest going down so regularly?

We need escalation numbers for Full Service for use in case of emergencies, vulnerability and safeguarding issues.  They can get reps to ‘register’ for them, cant they like the system run by HMRC for ‘intermediaries’?

Implicit consent reintroduced for MPs (but not for ‘enquiries from other sources’)  - written statement from Damian Green -

‘Today, I have agreed that the implicit consent approach which operates well for all other DWP benefits can be extended to MPs representing the interests of their constituents who are engaging with or directly claiming Universal Credit. We can offer this because of our pre-existing relationships between MPs offices, District Managers and their teams. This is something which cannot pertain for enquiries from other sources.’

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2017-03-13/HCWS528

Clearly the issue has seriously annoyed MPs and the Work and Pensions Select committee, hence it has been judged timely for a quick climbdown for MP offices, with exclusion justified because ” existing relationships… .

So much then for all our stakeholder relationships and the partnership approach.

We may need to get a crowbar in the door and try to prise it open a little wider or just refer everything to MPs caseworkers - or for Gareth, the Wardem of the Cinque Ports :-)

Hopefully the Work and Pensions Committee will not fall for the jesuitical casuistry that seeks to justify the limitation, to MPs only . Nice that they accept that it has workded so well with other benefits.

It would of course be nice if we didn’t need it, but UC is such an operational disaster with less than 100,000 in Full Service areas, that we sorely do

After all we have had approved partnerships before such as Pension Service local office status. Some of us in local authorities may have an argument in supporting Councillor’s/AMs/MP constituents, from within a local authority too.  Social landlords and HB sections have ongoing operational institutional link. The argument for restriction is then rather weak. 

Basically though they just don’t want to give way at all,  but recognise they get into contempt of Parliament issues if they obstruct MPs . Meanwhile, we are left with Neil Couling’s detailed outline of his patrician detachment from reality here:

The DWP approach to vulnerability states that people with complex needs “may experience difficulties with giving consent”.

Hi Owen I know you have shared this with us before but please could you remind us of the source and date of this document on vulnerability.
Thank you.

SarahJBatty - 03 May 2017 10:15 AM

Hi Owen I know you have shared this with us before but please could you remind us of the source and date of this document on vulnerability.
Thank you.

Hi Sarah

I’ve dug out the most recent version of that guidance which is taken from an FOI response dated 27/01/17.  See attached.

Owen