Has anyone had experience of a client who has been presented with the proposed new DLA checklist and if so, did they continue with their claim after answering the questions it contains, or did they not pursue the claim ? The checklist is intended to cut down on nugatory claims, of up to 50k a year in some estimates.
Nugatory claims to Disability Living Allowance (DLA) are claims that have no chance of success. These claims may be made by customers with no mobility or care needs or those that do not satisfy the residence and presence conditions of the benefit.

PDCS feel that its important to reduce the number of nugatory claims to DLA as these help to create the perception of poor customer service by raising unrealistic customer expectations when these claims have no possibility of succeeding.

Pension, Disability and Carers Service (PDCS) tested a checklist with prospective customers face-to-face, over the telephone with Helpline and via the post. The checklist asks a series of questions about the customer’s care and mobility needs to help them determine if they have any potential benefit entitlement. During testing PDCS were unable to include residence and presence questions due to uncertainty around the exportability of certain benefits.

There are views from some, who see this checklist as a de facto decision making process, thoughts or views anyone ?

Tue 05-May-09 02:18 PM by shawn

(Edited to shorten link)

Hi
PDCS asked RNIB to help pilot this checklist -- the point of which is to discourage so-called 'nugatory' claims from people who could not possibly be entitled to any rate of DLA.

We decided we could be of no help to PDCS on this project, as by definition no claim from a person registered as visually impaired could possibly be 'nugatory'.

Also we didn't agree with the notion of discouraging possible valid claims on the basis of one simple phone call, especially as we're not convinced that the concept of 'care need' or 'mobility need' is properly explained by PDCS Helpline staff.

Of course the process amounts to pre-claim decision making and is explicitly designed to put people off.
We've not yet had any callers to our national Helpline complain that they've been told not to bother claiming in spite of being registered blind, but we'll not be surprised if we do.
.... and you can be sure that any examples we hear about will be forwarded to Blackpool pretty quickly

alban

We have formally responded expressing similar views and that whilst we are happy to offer input into this PDCS project, it will not be to the detrament of anyone we represent.

Just to keep this topic updated, we and a number of other representative organisations have responded, generally the overall flavour of responses are negative, as Citizens Advice and others, have received several concerns from bureaux and advocacy organisations, about the checklist/shortlist. Particularly the way it is interpreted over the DLA helpline.
Advisers particularly have concerns, for example, that helpline staff give claimants only one example of what is meant by each point, which if they are not directly relevent to the claimants' situation might well dissuade them from making a perfectly legitimate claim.
We and i suspect others will be rejecting any suggestion that this form be rolled out on any National basis and the response to PDCS will reflect concerns of the respondants.

This must have been what I encountered not too long ago when ordering a DLA form for a client over the telephone.

He started to ask me questions about my client's personal care "can he get in and out of bed?" being one of them I remember.

I replied that these questions are something that I would be exploring in full with my client when we met, but that I was confident at present that there was potentially good grounds for the claim so could I just order the form PLEASE.

I submitted a social policy report for this, as I felt that it was not the appropriate place to be asking these questions - what if I had asked my colleague (who didn't know the client) to order a form, or a family member was advised to order a form? They very well may not know enough to give responses to those questions and therefore have the claim thwarted without even getting a sniff of the form.

We have been told (PDCS Advisory) that the helpline advisor should not resist or refuse to send a claim form out, where one is specifically requested. If this is happening then i for one would be interested to know, because this highlights the issues raised at the PDCS meeting.

It was also felt that even with all the good will going, individual helpline advisors may interpret the checklist and its useability in different ways, which could mean a person with a legitimate claim, may not end up either receiving a form or submitting a claim.

Refusal to give out a claim form is unlawful under regulation 4(5) of the Claims and Payments Regulations 1987.

the Pension, Disability and Carers Service has issued a new version of the DLA960 checklist that is now -

'.. being used by Helpline advisors when a customer calls to request a claim pack and will be incorporated across all points of customer contact during 2009'.

see update to our march 2009 news story Reducing the number of DLA claims that have no chance of success

... and http://www.dwp.gov.uk/about-dwp/customer-delivery/disability-and-carers-service/dcs-news/

How long do you reckon before this turns into a telephone claims process with claimants, when they phone up, being told that this is how they must claim. Thus, cutting out the intervention and assistance of advice workers.

We and all others who represent our organisations and the interests of people who will engage with PDCS have been assured time and again, that the checklist proceedure WILL NOT BE A DE FACTO decision making process. As it has been officially indicated that every caller will still be given the option of receiving a claim form, even if the call taker has been through the list and has suggested that a claim may not (for whatever reason) be successful.

The issue of call takers not being trained in any aspect of DLA/AA regs has also been raised consistently at a number of meetings where this topic has been discussed. Therefore no one should ever be put off making a claim, unless it is quite clear that their condition will not meet any aspect of the Regs, such as a broken leg, that given the natural ability to heal, will do exactly that.

I would certainly like to hear from anyone who has a case where the opposite may be a factor in a person not entering a claim.