Forum Home → Discussion → Other benefit issues → Thread
Those were the days…..
I’m just reading some old letter from the 1970’s/80’s for a matter, and they are a complete pleasure to deal with compared with the DWP’s current idea of plain English.
those were the days, when people knew how to write a letter that anyone could make sense of…
or is it just my age talking?
Care to share?
no. not a benefits case. just a thought that struck me whilst reading said old letters, and comparing with the new letters people get which IMHO are usually functionally illiterate and incomprehensible to even those of us with good language skills, let alone those without!
Part of the problem is that these days the vast majority of official letters are computer-produced and therefore 99% gobbeldygook. In ‘Those Days’ (grumpy old bag alert) people had to actually WRITE the letters…
Oh I see. I understand that most letters are generated by selecting an option from a drop-down menu or similar. Sometimes there is an option to add free text, which is an issue when the formal letter designed for the purpose doesn’t quite fit the case.
I wonder if there was a spate of gibberish letters that were confusing or made no sense and the department reacted by using templates. It’s a smart idea, provided it’s combined with common sense.
DWP officials can and do write bespoke letters, but it’s certainly not the norm. Almost every letter someone shows me in connection with a sanction or adverse decision - with the exception of standard “No AA/DLA/PIP/ESA because you’re not sick enough” letters - requires further contact with DWP, often two or three sections, to get to the bottom of it.
I don’t wish to be uncharitable. I have sympathy for officials caught in the byzantine web of bureaucracy, but it is frustrating and wastes everyone’s time.
Very mixed feelings about this.
Those were the days when DHSS staff routinely wrote letters referring to “your crippled son” or “your mentally retarded daughter” so let’s not get too carried away here. One of the bigger differences between then and now is the level of ministerial micro-management. There was a time when letters when written by people who managed the staff who were on the front line or at least not too far removed. The letters did what the staff wanted them to do.
If one takes the PIP letters as an example, a couple of people from our service were involved in the “consultation” exercise over the forms and the letters. We could look at the letters; identify an order to paragraphs and a wording that made much more sense and then be told “Thank you for your feedback but unofficially the minister wants that specific wording in that specific paragraph and it must be at the bottom of the first page.”
That’s the start of your problem right there.
Part of the problem is that these days the vast majority of official letters are computer-produced and therefore 99% gobbeldygook. In ‘Those Days’ (grumpy old bag alert) people had to actually WRITE the letters…
exactly (another grumpy old bag here… )
Dear Customer,
We are writing to you to touch base with you and advise you of a change in your benefits. The change in your benefits is unspecified and we can’t tell you what it is because of Data Protection and something else, big important stuff. That we can’t tell you about.
Your benefits will stop as of last month because of a change in your benefits that we learned about by reading the paragraph just above. Yes, that one.
The new rate of benefit is payable from next week.
Page 3 of this letter sets out how your benefits were worked out. Only it doesn’t because it’ a template that we forgot to adapt for your individual circumstances. And it’s got last year’s figures on it.
If you have limited capability for work, press 1. If you have limited capability for work-related activity press 2. If you have limited capability for understanding the theory of relativity, press 3. To get transferred on to a benefit you never asked for, press 4. For Mandatory Reconsiderations press 5,but if you can’t say ‘Mandatory Reconsideration’ properly we will refuse to assist you. And we may laugh.
No, we won’t explain what any of these things are. And that was from our phone script, sorry.
We have looked again at your claim, but owing to, erm, stuff, we have not changed our decision. We looked at the letters from your doctor. Your doctor is a silly-poo.
Having touched base with you, we are now going to load the bases and put runners on first, second and third. Hopefully we will hit a home run. But then again we don’t understand the sport to which we are referring. And nor do you.
Your benefits are still stopped.
Don’t argue.
Don’t phone – you will fail the security questions
And don’t write to me.
I do not exist.
Yours faithfully,
Jim Scraggle
Dept of Transverse Reciprocity
Ministry of Making Stuff Up
Reading your replies today Mr. Dutton I am slightly concerned for your health. It’s not even Wednesday. This sort of cynicism shouldn’t be hitting until at least late on Thursday!
Probably the only time I see properly written letters from DWP or HMRC is in reasonably-high level responses to complaints. It’s almost a shock to begin reading a letter, and realise that I’m consuming something that a real person has put some thought and effort into, as opposed to the normal pap regurgitated by a computer.
Reading your replies today Mr. Dutton I am slightly concerned for your health. It’s not even Wednesday. This sort of cynicism shouldn’t be hitting until at least late on Thursday!
Mike, I’m in that state by 10am any Monday!!!!