I've just read Rightsnet's news page...the list read...

Jobcentre Plus Chief Executive draws huge confidence from the Agency's achievements over the the last year
'Good progress made in making improvements that matter'
25 July, 2008

Little evidence of significant improvement in standards of DWP decision-making
New report from the President of Appeal Tribunals
25 July, 2008


...perhaps they ought to talk!

'Good progress made in making improvements that matter'... that will be those matters that make the operation more attractive to private sector contractors then.

A quick glance through the bullet points in the President's report tells you that appeals would have a higher chance of resolution pre-tribunal if decisions were made in local offices (including DLA/AA) where one human being could talk face-to- face with another. But then that would be hugely less attractive to the private sector of course as there would be a requirement for skilled and motivated staff.

Maybe we could persuade the SNP to stand in English elections..

The agency's achievements over the last year have been pretty good. We've certainly seem some improvements. However, overall, in my opinion, the service is still very much below what it ought to be, and probably below what it was when I started out in 1995 (or maybe even in 1949!!!). From my perspective, CMS etc virtually ruined and wiped out any decent standards that were in existence.

The report of the President of Appeal Tribunals mirrors this. The one thing that I have consistently said about the DWP's administrative reforms is that not only are they frequently unlawful (such as denying people a claim form) they go completely against the aim of the 1998 reform of benefit administration. I mean, I have to jump through god knows how many hoops to speak to a DM - often without success - how the hell are claimants supposed to do it!? They can't!

One of the key features of the 1998 reforms was that claimants should be able to speak (as in talk, verbally) to DM's to discuss thier claims and disputes in an informal setting so as to reach conclusion as easily and cost-effectively as possible.

CMS, Sons (or daughters) of CMS, targets, redundancies, office closures, low moral, inadequate training, 0845 phone numbers and even 'benefit simplification' (LMAO!) have conspired to make the '98 reforms totally meaningless for the main JC+ benefits (centralised benefits like CA, DLA being not so bad). And as for tax credits! Well, I'll just stop there shall I...?

I talked to a DLA DM not long ago who couldn't work out why so many DLA appeals succeeded - what might they be doing wrong? I said "perhaps it's because the Tribunal gets to see the appellant face to face and can try to get the full picture. When you only meet them on paper you are always going to lose appeals if people haven't been able to fill the form in properly and then get a proper chance to explain themselves."
They had the grace to acknowledge that this made sense.

I'll give just one good example of why they get so many overturned on appeal. I've got a DLA case and the GP, in the GPFR, has written "attacks now monthly - can't get out of bed for 3 days each time".

The DM has translated that as flare ups every month lasting 3 days at a time".

Now, that is either gross stupidity or bloody mischieviousness (and thats the polite version).

Here's another: I had a case some while ago. The client had alcoholism, mental health problems and epilepsy. Despite a well completed claim based on a need for constant supervision, DLA was refused.

The client died of his illnesses before the appeal was heard.