Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
PIP Helpline’s new “MR Team”
Hi all
This afternoon I have called the PIP helpline twice (to get an update of MRs I have requested in writing for clients). There is a new option for those calling about an MR, I selected this. Both times the call handler told me they have a “script” that they have to follow and there is no mention of implicit consent in that. Unless my client is with me or I am appointee, they will not discuss anything with me. There is apparently no supervisor or manager there I can speak with nor will they look at the DWP Guidance on working with representatives.
Just wanted to highlight this in case others called and thought this was a helpful development!! The only way I resolved it was to ask them to transfer me back to the main PIP helpline (where I waited the usual eternity to be answered!) where I could speak to someone who actually knew about implicit consent.
Any thoughts on who would be best to feed this back to? Is the Partnership Manager the best way? Surely people answering calls should be properly trained…...
I can ask via stakeholder forum - I’m guessing it’s an outsourced helpline and prob poor training again!
Thanks Daphne, I suspect you’re right!
Response so far -
We have really embedded the process to all colleagues and know this is an area where we have improved so much but, we do have some new colleagues who have joined and I just need to look into this and of course it can be rectified.
Leave it with me and I will update you once I have more detail.
“embedded the process” - strewth!
Remember the days when DLA in Warbreck House had a separate line for advisors. Why not just do that!
Remember the days when DLA in Warbreck House had a separate line for advisors. Why not just do that!
Oh those heady days! I remember them well!
Thanks Daphne - I have to say though that implicit consent had clearly just been left off “the script” for this seemingly new team. Let’s hope this can be rectified as they are answering calls a lot quicker than the 55 minutes the PIP helpline has been taking to answer!
“embedded the process” - strewth!
Another offence against the English language from DWP. How can you “embed a process to” someone? Any more than if I’m gardening I can “dig a hole to” someone.
Translated into normal English it presumably means: “They’re new and we haven’t told them about implicit consent yet.”
Remember the days when DLA in Warbreck House had a separate line for advisors. Why not just do that!
I second this. 0845 9000 121 is still imprinted on my brain. I always felt that they had some of their best people on this line.
Remember the days when DLA in Warbreck House had a separate line for advisors. Why not just do that!
I second this. 0845 9000 121 is still imprinted on my brain. I always felt that they had some of their best people on this line.
And the same for the regional ‘new claim’ offices (for our area Wembley - opposite the stadium). When the DWP actually provided a degree of ‘customer’ service (at least for advisers etc)| before they moved over to the ‘customer service’ model of delivery. We had official visits to both Wembley and Warbreck Hse which was very interesting & Informative to see how they divided up the processes etc. When we called we could then ask to be transferred to X section / team and speak to the person actually dealing with the claim!
However, we did ‘foul up’ the large self-service canteen at Warbreck Hse. The various options were charged by plate size for selections from a specific food counter - but no one told us - so we mixed & matched food from different counters on the same plate - caused havoc at the tills! So maybe the current level of service is our fault - they have never forgiven us!
My colleague fell foul of this new ‘MR team’ yesterday. They refused to log a request for a MR. She phoned back on the usual option and spoke to someone sensible, who logged the MR and told her the new ‘team’ was outsourced and not DWP.
Looks like Matt Hancock’s sister’s PPE company is diversifying…
A further response (not sure when implicit consent got renamed additional support??) -
Last week you got in touch to outline an emerging issue with implicit consent (now called additional support). We have worked closely with stakeholders to improve this process over the last year or so and we now have a sound process in place as part of our procedures.
As outlined in my initial response to you, we have had some new colleagues join us and following your contact, we have now identified that we need to do further work with them on this issue. Training sessions are now in place for WC 22 November and I ask that you give us time to work through this and if there are any issues that need resolving whilst we do this, please continue as you have done and contact me or the Advocacy Team inbox directly.
Do let me know if you have ongoing issues you want me to raise…
I thought implicit consent was now called ‘alternative enquiry’! Clearly times move fast in the world of DWP-speak…
In fact that’s confusing because ‘Additional support’ was the term used for the screening criteria they ask at the PIP1 point to identify & trigger the meagre safeguarding re: non-return of PIP2s- ie asking if the claimant has dementia, severe depression for which they’ve been hospitalised, schizophrenia, developmental delay etc.
A further response (not sure when implicit consent got renamed additional support??) -
Last week you got in touch to outline an emerging issue with implicit consent (now called additional support). We have worked closely with stakeholders to improve this process over the last year or so and we now have a sound process in place as part of our procedures.
As outlined in my initial response to you, we have had some new colleagues join us and following your contact, we have now identified that we need to do further work with them on this issue. Training sessions are now in place for WC 22 November and I ask that you give us time to work through this and if there are any issues that need resolving whilst we do this, please continue as you have done and contact me or the Advocacy Team inbox directly.
Do let me know if you have ongoing issues you want me to raise…
This is about the general enquiry line and not the MR Team. Posting here as it may be relevant anyway, Daphne. To add to the irritation in this particular case, I am named in writing on the claim pack as representative and was phoned some time previously about it by a case manager. The claimant had phoned me in some confusion after speaking to someone on the enquiry line who apparently told him he had to go before a judge (this could be claimant confusion but in light of what followed, not necessarily) so I telephoned the enquiry line to find out what was happening.
A answered and was unhappy that the client was not with me, said I needed to be appointee, I explained that that was not appropriate and referred both to explicit consent being on the file and to the policy which is on gov.uk, A said he would take advice then returned to say that the manager had said they could not speak to me due to my not being named as appointee “on this file” - A would transfer me to the enquiry line so I could be registered as appointee. I explained again that this was not appropriate and asked to speak to the manager. A paused the call again and then came back to say that the manager said he was too busy and that I should go on the gov website to register as a corporate appointee.I challenged this advice and A said he was transferring me to the enquiry line to make a complaint.
B answered, I started to outline the problem and the call was cut. I phoned again and C gave me the information I needed.
MM3 - a classic case of the left hand doesn’t know what the right’s doing - inconsistent approach to consent, both im/exp/licit!
A further response (not sure when implicit consent got renamed additional support??) -
Last week you got in touch to outline an emerging issue with implicit consent (now called additional support). We have worked closely with stakeholders to improve this process over the last year or so and we now have a sound process in place as part of our procedures.
As outlined in my initial response to you, we have had some new colleagues join us and following your contact, we have now identified that we need to do further work with them on this issue. Training sessions are now in place for WC 22 November and I ask that you give us time to work through this and if there are any issues that need resolving whilst we do this, please continue as you have done and contact me or the Advocacy Team inbox directly.
Do let me know if you have ongoing issues you want me to raise…
Thanks very much for the further update Daphne - we will look forward to the improved service from w/c 29 November!