Forum Home → Discussion → Other benefit issues → Thread
24 hour call backs from JCP
Well it seems the cost of persuading JCP to answer the phone within 5 minutes is their now only offering 24 hour call backs rather than 3 hour. This will mean needing to set aside two desk days to do any urgent follow up; well a day and a half at least.
I can understand it with an extra costs benefit such as PIP (even if I don’t like it) but I can see a case for treating subsistence benefits more urgently.
I would be curious for peoples’ thoughts.
Well it seems the cost of persuading JCP to answer the phone within 5 minutes is their now only offering 24 hour call backs rather than 3 hour. This will mean needing to set aside two desk days to do any urgent follow up; well a day and a half at least.
I can understand it with an extra costs benefit such as PIP (even if I don’t like it) but I can see a case for treating subsistence benefits more urgently.
I would be curious for peoples’ thoughts.
I work in a team of 2 doing advice. we dont tend to have 2 full days at our desk.
Well it seems the cost of persuading JCP to answer the phone within 5 minutes….....
I would be curious for peoples’ thoughts.
This isnt happening - typing this, while on hold before actually speaking to a proper person for 8+ minutes now.
I think this is a real concern and a rights issue - I agree with Dan that this sort of delay in dealing with basic benefit issues is not acceptable and puts vulnerable people a real risk - I’d also add that both claimants and workers regularly complain that they don’t get the promised callbacks.
And - UC? The guidance on dealing with reps is fine as far as it goes in terms of dealing with cases over a period of time where the claimant will have updated their journal to include the rep. It’s a worry for urgent cases (e.g. benefit not paid) where the rep is not already involved as in those cases the claimant may well not have ready access to the internet or charge/funds on their phone to nominate a rep or do a 3-way call. These may well be Friday afternoon and no food calls. DWP say this is because the way UC works implicit consent would be a data protection problem as an adviser would automatically have access to all info including NIno, dob and address - I cannot see why this is if it is a telephone call.
DWP say this is because the way UC works implicit consent would be a data protection problem as an adviser would automatically have access to all info including NIno, dob and address
i tend to find that if i’m advising someone i need to have their NINO, DoB and address anyway - need those to id them, write to them with client care/confirmation of instructions, write to, inter alia, DWP. the DWP can be really really stupid on data protection sometimes…...
DWP say this is because the way UC works implicit consent would be a data protection problem as an adviser would automatically have access to all info including NIno, dob and address
i tend to find that if i’m advising someone i need to have their NINO, DoB and address anyway - need those to id them, write to them with client care/confirmation of instructions, write to, inter alia, DWP. the DWP can be really really stupid on data protection sometimes…...
Their current position on impicit consent under UC in Full Digital areas in an utter nonsense.
They seem to think that because all the important personal information is stored in someone’s online account that making a telephone call to discuss that person’s claim somehow means that the person calling gains instant unfettered access to that account and the informaiton therein. It’s utterly illogical.