Is this right - fraud investigators get in-house decision-makers?

This MAY be an improvement.

One problem in fraud cases is the appalling length of time taken by DWP DMs to revise obviously erroneous decisions and the lack of priority they give such issues. This can mean that defendants are sentenced before accurate amounts are before the Courts; especially if their legal representatives are not confident and knowledgeable about social security law.

The dedicated teams are designed to speed decision-making.

The downside is that specialist teams dealing with fraud can become case-hardened and cynical and this then influences their decision-making, resulting in even more over-stated amounts in fraud cases.

things must be very bad, if this may be an improvement... maybe like Lloyds TSB taking over HBOS...nevermind the competion rules in a crisis. heh!

Fraud has it's own separate management from the rest of the DWP, and with its own decision-makers, the separation of investagative and decision-making powers resembles a sham...i doubt that many decision-makers will want to 'put obstacles in the way' of fraud officers, which is how not giving the required decisions is seen, unless conscious and determined efforts are made to ensure an 'appropriate environment'...which i doubt we (the country) can afford... (first rule of a recession - welfare cuts...)...even if there was an inclination...little evidence of that either...but then again...how costly is prioritising fraud targets...?

The decision makers will not be part of the Fraud service.

that's something. where will they be, do you know?

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/housingbenefit/user-communications/bulletins/2008/G16-2008.pdf

See link above. Presumably the teams remain part of the JCP Benefit Delivery Centre organisation; they are simply centralised teams of decision makers specialising in one area of work.

thanks - merthyr or sterling - i managed to miss that...

"A refined process was devised whereby FIS investigators made referrals on a revised REF2 template. This encouraged focussed submissions to SDMs, providing only the evidence required to make the decision and facilitated improved clearance times."

This bothers me because "the evidence required to make the decision" is selected by Fraud...who have their targets to meet. i once had to review a living together decision i had given on a fraud case based on a statement admitting L/T in a period. of course i had to review it when faced with incontovertible proof that the man was in prison at the time of the alleged L/T. he wasn't even her boyfriend - he was her sister's boyfriend, but she was having a nervous breakdown at the time she signed the statement. i never managed to get an explanation from Fraud...
oh it was all a long time ago now, and now we have centralised fraud processing factories...and a fraud industry...

I know from a previous life that DWP decision makers are protective of their independence, and like to think they are not influenced by target driven teams such as Fraud Squad; lets hope that ethos contines at Merthyr and Sterling... we should perhaps be cautious and wait and see.

aye. and on the plus side, centralised decision-making should facilitate the collection of some hard facts and figures at long last.

And there is this from CIS 1481 2006, just handed down:

Interviewing officer: “So as a result we applied to have your human rights suspended, which means that we have applied to do surveillance at your address”.

To which the commissioner responds:

“Individual human rights cannot be suspended by DWP officers. The Human Rights Act 1998 requires all British public authorities to comply with the enacted provisions of the European Convention of Human Rights on all occasions. That includes all DWP officers. It is irrelevant for that purpose that DWP officers are not lawyers. Mr Buley’s attempted defence of the officers’ misrepresentation on the grounds that they were not lawyers is misplaced. Mr Buley’s remarks are also misplaced on the facts in that officer W handled other formal aspects of the interview fully in accordance with proper procedure. He had clearly been trained in PACE procedure, and he was clearly aware of some aspects of RIPA. I do not criticise officer W for the comments here nor do I need to do so. It matters not whether his misrepresentation was deliberate or innocent. It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to provide adequate training and guidance to DWP officers. And the Secretary of State is responsible for any failures in that. I am told that there had at that time been no specific guidance to officers on this aspect of the law. That may explain officer W’s comment. As Mr Buley readily accepted, it was unfortunate and regrettable. It was a powerful statement, and it was plainly wrong. I trust that such officers will be given appropriate guidance in the light of this decision if that has not already happened”.

gasp! we have applied to have your human rights suspended!!! the bureaucrats faith in bureaucracy - hilarious in a shaun of the dead kind of way, and slightly scary...

I know. "We have applied to have your human rights suspended". What all of them? Am I now to be denied the right to an education? Am I to be subject to cruel and degrading treatment followed by my immediate execution?

Give me strength!!

Well, first experience of dealing with the new centralised team in Stirling so far has been entirely negative:

1. Client gets letter advising of retrospective non entitlement to IS from his local BDC (I assume this is an attempt at a supersession). Client appeals and I then become involved.

2. I phone the local BDC to try and clarify reasons and evidence for non entitlement.

3. Local BDC staff are very helpful but say the decision has been made by a DM in the fraud decision making team at Stirling and they don't know the reasons in any detail or have any of the evidence. They contact the Stirling DM and ask her to contact me.

4. The Stirling DM refuses to phone me and tells the local BDC that I am not nominated as a rep (even though written consent has been provided and the local BDC accept this).

5. Local BDC give me the Stirling DM's fax number.

6. Over next few days, I twice fax a copy of the client's consent together with a request for her to ring me to discuss. I also fax some additional evidence which I think may be helpful and client also rings the local BDC to confirm that he is happy for them to talk to me.

7. Still no reply, So I track down the phone number for the external relations manager at Stirling BDC on the JCP website. Ring this. Phone is answered by a helpful man who just happens to be in the wrong office. He agrees to talk to the DM and ask her to phone me.

8. 24 hours later,still no call. I ring the helpful man again (using the wrong number in the wrong office which I found) and he agrees to talk to the DM again. He says I ought be dealing with the local BDC. I explain again how I have tried this and they don't know the reasons for the decision or the evidence used and hence why I need to talk to someone who is dealing with it, that I have faxed written consent, etc.

9. Stirling DM rings and leaves a curt message on my voicemail, does not give either her name (which I know anyway because the local BDC told me!) or phone number and says she can't talk to me and that I should await sight of the appeal papers

10. I ring the helpful man again...and on it goes until I decide to escalate matters to the highest level within JCP..tbc

Neil

Before the DM in Stirling complains about your harassment, I should suspend her human rights.

Another example of the system being 'simplified' and 'improved' by centralisation.

In practice what difference will it make to the quality of evidence gathering and decision making? Although, as Neil found out, it may be more difficult for reps to assist the client (like trying to deal with specialist 'right to reside' DMs at Wick). Well, it will improve DMs reaching their targets if they are not interupted by claimants/ reps all the time!

Clearly there are cases of fraud where the DMs decision cannot be anything other than correct - 'bang to rights' and all that.

However, our experience is that the quality of evidence gathered by fraud officers is often poor. Pages of interview under caution etc only demonstrate that fraud officers often have little knowledge of the qualifying rules for the relevant benefit (such as DLA). But DM still makes a negative decision on entitlement - often worded 'the evidence is not consistent with the level of award' or some similar reason that ignores the regs.

The client appeals and a tribunal allows the appeal because the evidence does not address the qualifying criteria and SofS cannot demonstrate grounds for supersession.

In the meantime debt management issue an o/p decision based on entitlement decision - which inevitably requires a seperate appeal - which becomes irrelevant on winning the entitlement appeal.

But DWP decide to prosecute - criminal case is heard and client is found guilty (because court and criminal lawyer do not understand benefits decision making & appeal - our experience is that court will refuse to postpone criminal case pending outcome in social security jurisdiction). So claimant is convicted of a criminal offence that a tribunal later determine never existed.

But then that's progress for you!