Someone who had recently claimed ICB told me that it is no longer possible to claim by completing an SSP1 as the form no longer doubles up as a claim form. You have to contact JCPlus and request an SC1 and send this together with your SSP1 to the DWP. Is this correct and when did the change take place? Thanks.

Think it's tied to the JC+ rollout. Certainly in this area once we became JC+ the SSP1 ceased to contain the insert for the claimant to fill in and they had to go through the telephone claim system and then have the interview arranged at local JC+.

can anyone think of a reason why IB claim forms should not be available at alternative community outlets and the claim process instigated by post instead of telephone call?

it's clearly not in the interests of claimants.

it looks like control freakery, but i suspect it's internal pay and grading issues, and a government cost cutting target.



jj

Yes its all part of Jobcentre plus, so those of you who have not had it rolled out in your area yet can look forward to the call centre refusing to send out a claim form because the client isn't there, agreeing to send the forms but then not bothering because they have 'decided' that the claimant wouldn't be entitled after all, insisting on making 2 calls if need more than one form because its 'policy'...

And if thats not enough fun, we can all look forward to the Caller management System, which is JC+ version of the Pension Service's claim line.

it's rolling out here in birmingham, and seems like barely organised chaos.

the people who staff the call centre, as i understand it, are paid at the lowest grade. afaik they're the ones who book the appointments and send out the form. ( IF they don't tell people not to bother because they're not entitled!!).

why can't we have a stock of claim forms to issue to people who want them? because, and this is just my educated guess, the claim MUST start from a telephone call - and the call centre staff can't make calls, they can only receive them, because making calls is work of a higher grade, and they're paid at rock bottom. it's not the job of the higher grade workers in the 'customer contact' offices, to book the appointments... that's the job of the call centre staff, who can't make calls...

maybe somebody from the DWP can put me right on this...?

i have an idea that there used to sections of a very old social security act under a heading 'Duties of the Secretary of State' but i can't find anything like that now and wonder whether i dreamed it...

i wonder if JC+ could cope with stencilled notices of intention to claim, posted to an appropriate office...?

jj

i expect you'd just get a stencilled note back saying 'ring this number...'

jj

Reg 4(5) of the Claims and Payment Reg’s states: -

“Where a person who wishes to make a claim for benefit and who has not been supplied with an approved form of claim notifies an appropriate office (by whatever means) of his intention to make a claim, he (or if he is a member of a joint claim couple, either member of that couple) shall be supplied, without charge, with such form of claim by such person as the Secretary of State (or the Board) may appoint or authorise for that purpose”.

To my mind this reg’ does three things.

1. It confers no statutory duty on the DWP to issue a claim form to a person who is not the claimant or his/her partner.

2. A claimant can notify the DWP by any means (visit, phone, fax, e-mail, semaphore, smoke signals etc) to request a claim form.

3. A claim form when requested must be issued.

In spite of the unlawful practice of some benefit officers in refusing to give claim forms out or on insisting that the claim be made by telephone, customer service managers of local offices have made repeated assurances that these practices should not happen. There is, however, little sign of improvement.

The Social Fund Inspectors have also castigated the DWP for insisting that claimants make crisis loan applications by telephone.

Regards
Paul

hi paul

i agree entirely . it's odd that there are no duties on the SoS laid down in the Acts, isn't it? : )

'little sign of improvement' is the really frustrating matter, though. or perhaps i mean the rhetoric/reality gap?

the welfare state has morphed into the stakeholder state. it's worrying if the government sees itself as by far the biggest stake-holder. change is inevitable, but a change of that magnitude...?

it's interesting how the 'cut bureaucracy' plans are running away out of control. anything could happen...

the difference between 'government' and 'management' is a significant one, and apparently beyond the understanding of managerialists. this runs the risk of things running out of 'control' and people beginning to ask pertinent 'think the unthinkable' questions on their own.

i expect community and voluntary organisations will become flavour of the month again - oops - sorry - cheap shot...

repeated assurances that unlawful practices will not continue, repeated assurances that unlawful practices will not continue,

do you think they'll get a clue Paul? : )

regards

jj

it's encouraging to see the CPAG raising the issue of administration, in their manifesto, although it's a bit of a groan having to reinvent the wheel. Also to note the audit commission's report makes no mention of income support underpayments - IB overpayments get a mention but not IS.

my experience of BA managerialism was extremely negative, but illuminating. It was a vehicle of imposing radical cultural change upon the DSS, (which was the DHSS when i joined it,as a baby, in 1971, and the contrast in attitudes about overpayments and underpayments could barely be more marked.

in those days, departmental audit and survey teams used to descend upon local offices, and the management used to walk around looking pale and slightly shaky, while the audit or survey team went through a selection of cases with a fine tooth comb and a brown pencil, then delivered their report. a poor report would result in ass kicking, which would spoil the ambience...

i recall my 'mentor', who had been there since 1948, explain to me that underpayments were as bad as overpayments - worse in fact, because it means someone is not getting what they are legally entitled to. and indeed, she correctly reflected the departmental thinking.

i would be surprised if many people there now would share or even understand that view. i don't understand how the auditor general can assess performance and value for money without information on underpayments. and i'd be very interested to know the ratio of appeals to adverse decisions.

but i'm harking back, in a sense, to commissioner howell's beautiful decision, when he declined to consider that the Secretary of State would entertain 'improper' motives for depriving people of their entitlement ie saving money at the expense of the claimant.

what is unthinkable of a secretary of state, conventionally at least, does not compute to a manager, whose purpose is saving money and cutting costs, and there's a whip or a big juicy carrot to remind him at all times.

so when the law becomes an obstacle or an irritant to business managers, what do they do? pay it lip service, ignore it, break it and lobby for change? observe it when obliged to?

if that 'business' is a government department without commitment to the rule of law, what does it say about the government.

imagine if those BA bullies (how is cultural change _imposed_?)are now advising ministers, is it any wonder that the ultimately damaging obsession with fraud (citizen as criminal)continues?

jj

Hi JJ

I advised a client today to request an ICB (youth) claim form for his son who has learning disabilities. He rang me later to tell me that the local office had told him when he phoned that they do not send the forms out anymore as they were concerned that people were not putting the right info on the form and thus losing out on money.

Laugh, I nearly cried!.

I hope that you have said the appropriate amount of bloody marys and hows yer fathers for once working for the department. Lol.

Regards
Paul

lol! thanks.

i'm probably still at the 'out damned spot' stage. : )



jj

alternative theory

see righsnet news story -lie detector technology.

nb polygraph evidence isn't admissable in court - for criminal proceedings - so is the DWP wasting its time looking into an anti fraud measure it can't use?

on the other hand, blunkett was considering changing the ruling...so do we have an example of joined up thinking here, as well as governmental expenditure prior to and presupposing parliamentary debate of a constitutional change...

on the other hand, benefit decisions are on the balance of probabilities - so can we look forward to appeal submissions of the calibre of DLA? - "it has been established that X is not entitled to IS because her voice tremored twice and she gave a nervous cough during the the telephone conversation dated blah when she was asked what she had been living on in the last three months while waiting for her claim to be processed.."

on the otherhand...would politicians agree to it being used on them?
silly question. sorry. i forgot...

jj

The Times had an article in on Saturday or Sunday morning re: the lie detectors.

The system is a Voice Stress analysis system and is quite new, marketed by an Israeli firm.

Polygraphs work by sweat detection.

This system would take your responses from name, address NINO etc and measure the stress in the voice against an answer on work done or capital for instance.

The article went on to explain that if the analysis indicated the subjects voice seemed stressed on particular answers then further questions would be asked.

Logically a claim could not be refused on the basis of voice analysis but a claimant might find themselves under greater scrutiny and further investigation before a claim would be decided.

The principle comes from the insurance sector whom have reported that in their experience the equipment is affective as a number of claims have been withdrawn.

Personally, I can't see how the use of the equipment can be stopped.

If I go on holiday I have to go through that metal detector. If it goes off it might be my belt or something.

If I go shopping the exits have those alarms for detecting security tags. Sometimes they go off and I have to show the security staff my shopping and a receipt.

In each case I'm innocent.

The only issue I'd have is where a claim may be indefinitely delayed because the machine says so.

I don't think hysterical rants really help anyone (especially the professional adviser) in the long run.

A reasoned approach to new technology or change is always better than looking like a Luddite.

Please tell me this is a bad joke....

Afraid its no joke - see last week's rightsnet news story -

Using lie detectors to identify benefit fraud: DWP conducting \'preliminary investigations\'

And this is the article itself.

Oh... and I don't usually read the Times....ahem...

Lie detector machines planned to tackle benefit fraud
Robert Winnett, Whitehall Correspondent


LIE DETECTORS could be introduced to a range of government offices to identify whether members of the public are telling the truth over the phone.


Ministers are studying plans to install the new technology to help public sector workers in areas vulnerable to fraud such as tax, benefits and immigration.

The detectors — which pick out lies by measuring stress levels in the voice — are already used by insurance companies to spot false claims.

Several government departments are in negotiations with Capita, the IT firm, which has bought the rights to distribute the detectors within the public sector. A Whitehall source said: “There are consultations going on between Capita and several government departments. This technology is expected to be in widespread use in the public sector by the end of the year.”

Last week the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) confirmed that it was studying the use of the technology to weed out fraudulent benefit claims. Chris Pond, a minister at the DWP, said: “We are in the early stages of conducting preliminary investigations into how voice stress analysis technology is currently used in the private sector.”

If the results of the DWP’s study are positive, the Inland Revenue, Home Office and Criminal Records Bureau are likely to try out the technology this year.

Several insurance firms have been using the lie detectors for the past year and have recorded a 20% fall in fraudulent claims, saving them tens of millions of pounds.

By monitoring stress levels, the “voice risk analyser” — developed in Israel for use by secret service agents — differs from traditional lie detectors, which measure sweat.

The machine assesses a caller’s response to straightforward questions, such as their name and address, which it uses to analyse their normal voice pattern. It then detects whether this pattern alters when the person is asked a more direct question on a subject such as whether a benefit claim is genuine. It claims to be able to screen out people who are nervous or stressed from those that are lying.

Claims by people who are judged to be lying are then subjected to more rigorous investigations. The insurers have found that many suspect claims are dropped as soon as concerns are raised.

The system is being used by at least five insurers, including Halifax, Axa and Highway Insurance. Other firms, including banks assessing loan applications, recruitment companies and even dating agencies, are understood to be planning to use the new system.

The introduction of the technology, which is prohibited in several countries, is likely to be opposed by privacy campaigners. Studies carried out by American universities have questioned whether the reliability of its results.

An investigation by the US Air Force research laboratory concluded that the voice-based lie detectors “do recognise stress through voice analysis; however, although these systems state they detect deception, it was not proven”.

The project is being masterminded by Rod Aldridge, the chief executive of Capita, who is very close to Labour ministers. He believes the technology has huge potential. Benefit fraud is estimated to cost the DWP alone £3 billion a year.

. .
"He believes the technology has huge potential......"

Whilst not wishing to appear even slightly cynical, because that's not really in my nature, I have nearly always equated "huge potential" with £ signs -

"Benefit fraud is estimated to cost the DWP alone £3 billion a year"

When arriving at a guestimate of fraud levels, do the DWP not project losses for some considerable time into the future, on the basis that if not detected it would lose X amount? I would surmise that this distorts the figures somewhat.

As for a nervousness in the tone of the voice - some of my clients would almost be caught at the first hurdle, giving their name and address.

As an after thought, would it not be a good idea to try these out in the House of Commons first.................?

Sorry Mike, Labour MP John Mann came up with the idea first...

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1401675,00.html.

Also worth remembering that they initially denied any plans of even looking at lie detectors. Now they say they are, which makes their earlier statements a sort of, well, lie really.

You just watch their lips.

If they move, they're lying.

lol! they definitely sort of lied, really - and there's a link below for those who like checkable facts.

on the basis of 'don't watch the hand they're waving at you, watch the other one',it's interesting to note that the CEO of Capita (how close to ministers?) has a masterminding interest in the project. i just hope he didn't see the 'prison boots' episode of Red Dwarf...

three cheers for John Mann and his 'he who smelled it, dealt it.' approach. : )

jj





http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/cm050124/text/50124w17.htm#50124w17.html_sbhd3

See the link below.

It's only a short report but it does indicate that underpayments and overpayments are guessed, sorry, calculated by the DWP themselves.

We are talking a 2.8% fraud and error rate which I don't think is too bad considering the complexities and numbers involved.

Yet £3,000,000,000 will always get the headlines.



http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/04-05/0405170.pdf

jj,
"i have an idea that there used to sections of a very old social security act under a heading 'Duties of the Secretary of State' but i can't find anything like that now and wonder whether i dreamed it"


Are you thinking of the old " welfare of the claimant" provision? It may be in the 1975 act or possibly the SB act 1966( imposed duty on SoS to conduct system so as to promote welfare of claimants, interpreted by SoS to impose requirement for "prompt, courteous and humane service" ). IIRC, it disappeared at the time when we started to get "charters" for everything.

Regards

to be honest, i'm not sure what i'm thinking off... : )

maybe i'm a little tense about the coming Hinchy decision... or my 'BA experience...or freaked out by two amazing tribunal experiences this morning : )

i'm racking my brains out on old legislation but ... : )

yes the citizen, ahem customer charters. if it's possible to be worth less than worthless...? i mean, nobody took cone hot-lines seriously, but...here we are.

i probably am tense about the hinchy decision, when i think of it...it wouldn't be surprising...

i spent about three years adjudicating on overpayments full time in the BA...and many more years before that doing lower overpayment volumes with other adjudication and sec of state work on benefit sections. nostalgia ain't what it used to be, i've heard. : )

that definition of prompt, courteous and humane, particularly the 'humane'is, shall i just say, open to interpretation...

i might yet wax lyrical about the principle behind BF53s and 54s, so i'll move on quickly and get back when my brain's ready for more racking thereof...

one of my clients was stunned by the tribunal experience this morning... and i'm still dazed... : )

will the hinchy decision be excellent? : )



jj