Why do the CHB unit refuse to accept faxed consent? They insist on me writing in so I can guess it'll be about 6 weeks before I get a response. At least the TCO have this going for them. How can HMRC depts differ so much and has anyone found a way around it?

Sue

There is a HMRC complaints fact sheet. There is a link to it on the tax credits forum under the heading "no response fron TCO".

Paul

Paul it's not TCO it's CHB

Sue

By CHB I presume you mean Child Benefit. Apologies if not.

Child Benefit is also administered by The Revenue. The fact sheet has a specific complaints line phone number for Child Benefit.

Paul

Sorry Paul, I knew what I meant! - yes it is Child Benefit. I'm becoming one of the jargon users I can't stand.

I had a bit of a do on the phone yesterday when a manager said they wouldn't accept faxed consent and told me I'd have to write in like everyone else. I asked for the details of the complaints dept but he just said send it to Washington and the post room would direct it to the right dept. yeah course!!

In the past few days I've just felt like telling them all to **** off and just walking out of the job. Everything but everything feels like hard work. How the hell claimants cope these days without someone on their side is anyone's guess. I'm sure it's got much worse over the 1/6 of a century I've been in the job.

Phew....deep breaths...calm down, calm down

Sue

Have a look at Schedule 2 of the Child Benefit and Guardians Allowance(Admistration) Regs 2003 - Electronic Communications. Particularly paras 7-11.

Should give you the ammo you need.

Many thanks Paul

How about faxing the regs to them. Even they should appreciate the irony!

you little tinker. I'll send 'em with love from you.

This has obviously been our private messaging board as there's only been me and you.

Sue

we didn't want to spoil the cozy relationship by introducing a third (or fourth) person!

Shabir

Everyone welcome Shabir - come and tuck in

Hi de Hi! Welcome to Maplins.

I sent our usual authority form to CB centre and they phoned me to say they could only accept an original. I said that I couldn't get an original as my client has serious mental health problems and does not open her post.

We asked for confirmation of the CB award for a backdated HB claim which would prevent eviction for rent arrears, but they cared not for anything other than an original signature.

They helpfully suggested that they should send the letter to client who can pass it on to me - in total disregard for the fact that the client is too ill to open her post!!

Sigh...

Multi party action - all of us against the idiotic bureaucracy. Lets have a chara to Washington and storm the fortified buildings

Either Washington will do

Hopefully this will be a thing of the past (who am I kidding?) now they've started to accept the newly amended TC689 and faxed ones at that.

What hacks me off, apart from them blatantly ignoring statute, is them being allowed to stamp all over the common law. The common law of agency, centuries old, allows for a person to act for another and as long as the principle's wishes are clear there is no prescribed format for those wishes to be expressed, particularly when in writing.

To exercize rights, statute often provides for certain terms to be expressed, such as an appeal, but often does not require them to be expressed on a particular piece of paper. There are exceptions of course, such as instigating court proceedings, but there are good policy reasons for this.

The bureaucratic mind is a little mind and is fearful and jealous of intelligence, creativity and imagination. Thus it seeks to compartmentalize them lest it be overwhelmed by them.

It hacks us all off Paul and I'm sick of fighting. I wanted to continue to argue the toss about the CHB refusal to accept faxes as per my first post here but I'm at the stage where I'm just relieved now to accept the amended form. I'm sick to death of all the obstacles we have to jump over and hoops we have to jump through. It gets to the stage where we're having to put so much more effort into dealing with petty bureaucracy,incorrect procedures and as you say the blatant ignoring of statute than we do into the actual case itself which most of the time can be resolved in a timely fashion if it were not for the c*** in getting trying to get there in the first place.

Go and have a pint for me. Mind you I've some Belgian beers in the fridge so I might partake in my backyard while the sun's out (sorry I meant walled courtyard according to local estate agents).

Last call for a Friday to illustrate just how much C*** there is.
At a local JC+ liason meeting I asked the chair, a senior manager, to explain why clients where having such difficulties claiming when regs clearly showed clerical claims were acceptable to be told "We have our own systems and procedures in JC+"

Nutshell! Screw the law

Its 3pm I'm off to watch the Oaks.

A DWP spokesman has just issued the following statement.

Well we’ve had a look at the law and decided that we don’t like it so here’s what we’re going to do instead.

All potential candidates for a State pittance will from now on have to provide proof of their moral rectitude. Examples of documents we will accept are: -

· A signed photograph of Tony Blair (peace be upon him)
· A certificate of loveliness, signed by a minister of the church
· A note from my mum

The next step will be an interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury where the candidate will swear on secret oath to obey loyally and absolutely any order or direction of an officer of the DWP, a breach of which will render the miserable wretch liable to a public flogging while being subjected to the Cliff Richard’s “Mistletoe and Wine” on a tape loop.

Next, the candidate will hop on one leg 10 times around the Jobcentre singing “Gertcha” by Chas and Dave.

Finally, after promising not to spend his/her weekly pittance on anything approximating alcohol, tobacco or illegal substances s/he will be free to return home and await gratefully for payment.

All attempts at lodging appeals will be frowned on, the application incinerated and the applicant tarred and feathered. Any decision of the DWP will be final.

You have a nice day now.

Have you seen the social scrutiny website? I used to think it was a spoof...

so did I but now I wonder

Brilliant isn't it? I've got it added to my favourite's list.

Oh ive found it now thanks-presumably this means a copy of their new authority can be faxed-but not Welfare Rights version, as it's not acceptable?

NEVIP, do you have a link for this as i cannot find it on a search?
Ive had this problem with CBC on numerous occasions.


Have a look at Schedule 2 of the Child Benefit and Guardians Allowance(Admistration) Regs 2003 - Electronic Communications. Particularly paras 7-11.

Should give you the ammo you need.