Complaint against a CAB

I’ve recently made a complaint to a CAB about poor quality advice given in a case involving ESA and an unrelated overpayment.  Rather than taking the opportunity to reflect on and learn from the mistakes, the Bureau has communicated with me in an aggressive and over-defensive tone.  It’s also been going on for over 3 months.  Worse than a bad DWP/LA office on a bad day and completely counter-productive as it inflames the situation, leading to escalation.

This is not the first time this has happened when I have raised concerns with a CAB, though I also have had very positive, courteous and professional responses from other CABs who have learned from the concerns raised.

If anyone has had similar negative experiences when complaining about advice given by a CAB, please can you phone me on 01473 251100?  Thanks.

..

It’s happening so often now that if the client has suffered financial loss then a legal suit should be considered. By sitting back and let it keep happening we become part of the problem.

The CAB are no longer indepennt they are part of the establishment. Nobody polices the CAB anymore or if they do its themselves. The CAB must realise that if they want the majority, if not all of the funding. The 3rd sector will hold them accountable for the lack of quality advice which is now, in my experience, the norm rather than the exception.

Well said that man/woman I could not agree more.

I suspect your post will be removed / censored by the Rightsnet police as happened to post number 2 above yours.

hi bill .. re your reference to ‘rightsnet police’ .... that’s a bit unfair ... 

of course we do have a role to play in moderating the forum, but trust that this helps to make it (as we say in the acceptable use policy) a ‘friendly, supportive and considerate environment where advisers can share experience and expertise ...’

ps - for the record, we didn’t do anything in relation to dcp’s post above

cheers - shawn

I have a client who went to tribunal about his WCA. The tribunal refused to consider an illness he had at time of the decision because a diagnosis had not been given, although it was being investigated. He lost his appeal and contribution based ESA. He went to CAB who advised him to make a fresh claim without ascertaining his circumstances. His wife works full time minimum wage. Although claim awarded the break in claim meant no income based ESA payable. In my opinion ought to have been advised to appeal to upper tribunal.

He has lost £100.00 per week if he had been advised correctly. He is, in my opinion a nap for the support group.

Just to provide an update.

I have now received a proper response to my complaint and lessons have ben learned.  Also, after I wrote to the Chief Executive of Citizens Advice (CA), Gillian Guy, the national CA complaints procedure is being amended to improve timescales and the tone of responses to complaints. 

So, progress.

Thanks to all who contacted me with similar experiences.

Hi

We are sorry to hear that some of you have experienced problems with Citizens Advice Bureaux.

The Citizens Advice service dealt with 2.3 million enquiries last year on a wide range of issues. Quality matters to us and we are always trying to improve the quality of our service. Your feedback and details of your experience will help us to do that.

Please get in touch with us if you wish to make a complaint about a bureau. If you send your complaint to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) we will make sure that it is directed to the relevant CAB, who will deal with your issue under our complaints procedure (available at http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/index/aboutus/complaints_policy.htm).

Regards

Citizens Advice

Tony Bowman - 09 August 2013 08:15 AM

Alan,

Do you know what proportion of those 2.3m enquiries were ‘new’ and ‘repeat’ enquiries?

Hi Tony

The 2.3 million figure represents new enquiries. You can look at all the statistics, and analysis, at https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/index/aboutus/publications/advice_trends.htm

Cheers.

Alan

To someone looking from the outside.

There are a lot of talented folk working in ADVICE for modest or no reward. THe knowledge of some individuals is truly amazing.

However. Say it quietly….It is not really consistent or “joined up”. Is it?

It appears that when a customer, gets bad advice, they dont complain, they trundle off to a Neighbouring Advice agency, who gently explain that the first agency hasnt quite grasped the real problem…..............

Signposting appears to be about identifying and directing to one of the talented folk identified above. These individuals often hold extradinary caseloads, work all hours and consequently suffer burnout.

Am I being unfair?

Maybe.

This is a personal view.

Is one of the issues the quality and depth of advice now being given? CABx like other advice organisation’s vary one to another.

However, now that most (all?) CABx have moved to the ‘gateway’ triage system, are some giving less in depth advice (able to do less casework) rather than simply diagnosing problems, giving basic / emergency advice and acting as a signpost to other agencies (which often don’t have the resources / appropriate specialists to take on a case). Clearly the increasing demand and complexity of issues presented as well as the ability to recruit and retain advisers (particularly volunteers), cuts in funding etc must all be factors influencing the quality of advice.

It is a huge challenge to train up a generalist adviser with the level of knowledge of the benefits system (given the scale of reform) so they can not only advise on the qualifying criteria etc. but have sufficient understanding of the admin. processes to be able to assist clients to resolve issues with the DWP etc. And that’s without having to take on all the other areas of advice a generalist would have to deal with. Its is a tough enough ask for a full time adviser let alone part time to attain the necessary expertise and then keep up to date.

When I worked in London CABx in the late 80s there was a CAB poster which read ‘no problem to great or to small’. I never believed it then and I certainly don’t believe it now. With the best intention in the world CABx or any other generalist advice centre must struggle to deliver the depth of casework often required across a range of subjects and maintain the quality and accuracy of advice. There is an old saying about ‘jack of all trades and master of none’.

The bureaux I worked in had already adopted a ‘gateway’ & appointment service rather than extended ‘open door drop-in’ to cope with the growing demand way back then!

I would suggest a lot of advice agencies are in denial about what is really required to provide a quality service to the depth required to meet the needs of clients. Or maybe I’m just a dinosaur who needs to retire!

We are fortunate to have a good local CAB with knowledgeable staff and managers. However, they get well over 3 times the funding that we as a law centre get from the local authority. However the LA has made it clear that they expect the CAB to be the first point of call for advice, and refer cases to us as specialists in welfare benefits. That means they have to operate telephone advice almost all day, 5 days a week, and be open for drop ins far more than we are.
However, the disparity in funding still rankles - our CAB never had legal help contracts, so they monitored in a different way than us and other organisations, and continue to do so. This also rankles, as their figures for “client contacts” ( A CAB way of monitoring) mean it looks like they see far more clients than would be humanly possible. We do not count “contacts” just cases. And of course the LA loves all the stats and never questions it.

We take referrals so will have the CAB casework sheet with the referral. I am simply amazed at how many different codes and “enquiries” can be generated from one single case. For example, on an ESA appeal, if the client is simply advised that they have a choice to claim JSA pending the appeal (and most wont) then this is entered as a separate enquiry to do with JSA entitlement and bumps up the figures. Like wise, if a client is advised to reclaim HB due to nil income until appeal rate ESA is processed, this counts as a separate enquiry and bumps up the figures. I have seen 8 separate enquiry codes on one simple ESA appeal.

This is just not fair and really upsets other organisations - we do not monitor in this way but it makes our figures look very poor compared to the CAB. We just count “cases”, not client contacts, so the most we might get out of a CAB ESA referral is 2 e.g. ESA and DLA.

Likewise with regard to income generation, the figures are just impossible but look very impressive. If the CAB is a generalist service and does not do casework as such, how does it generate such huge sums of money? Apart from the money advice part, which I accept can generate a lot of income, write-offs for clients.

This also rankles a lot with other organisations. We suspect that the answer is in the codes used - e.g if a client is advised they can claim assessment phase rate ESA or JSA pending an appeal, this would count as income generation of 52 weeks x the applicable rate of JSA/ ESA.

Perhaps Alan would like to comment on this, as a level playing field is required here!

PCLC - 09 August 2013 01:54 PM

Familiar story. Of course CAB has a big reputation / influence nationally and (usually) locally. But it does wrankle when they claim to funders the are doing such a large amount of work (and get funded accordingly) when in practice they are signposting / referring a lot of clients to other agencies who actually do the specialist level work like tribunal representation or Debt Relief Orders. For example, helping a client complete a GL24 and then referring them on cannot be classed as ‘providing representation at tribunals’!

But then that’s the nature of influence and the funding game!

[ Edited: 9 Aug 2013 at 05:10 pm by Peter Turville ]

From the outset I know nothing about the details of the case in point and my remarks here are not to be taken as comments upon it or any of the parties involved but as general observations only.

The discussion has thrown up several issues.  I don’t intend to delve into the funding/stats recording one.  On the issue of advice itself, there are, quite obviously, many levels of subject, knowledge and experience across the field and among advisers.  The first issue, of course is one of training.  We all have to start somewhere and proper training and supervision is vital.  Next comes experience.  This comes through practice.  And it is here that knowledge is accumulated.  Everyone, and I mean everyone, will make mistakes, no matter how experienced they become.

And then there is the issue of competence.  No-one can know everything about everything and, apart from the simple things, only a genius can know everything about something.  It is enough that we know enough.  The rest is what the law books, cases and materials, and, information systems are for.  There is no excuse for trying to wing it and then trying to cover up when it goes wrong.  This leads on to the matter of honest advice and professional integrity.  I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been told by clients who have good days and bad days who have been advised to fill out a DLA form according to how they were on their worst day, as opposed to a typical or average day.  That kind of sleight of hand simply won’t do and will only come back to bite the claimant in the backside when a tribunal picks the evidence apart.  Presumably the relevant adviser will not be present.

So honest advice and good faith are the cornerstones of our profession.  Professional integrity demands it.  The rest can be learned.  It is not a sin to make an honest mistake.  It can be embarrassing, yes, but a professional reputation isn’t going to be destroyed by it.  So what about when a complaint is made, which is what Neil’s post was all about.  The relevant organization first has to take it seriously and investigate with an open mind without pre-judging the outcome.  We all know that.  But only the evidence that can be proved or corroborated to the appropriate standard can determine the outcome.  If the evidence supports no case to answer then the organization is perfectly entitled to reject the complaint and reject it robustly if challenged.  What the organization cannot do is ignore (or even worse, fabricate) the evidence or throw unfounded counter allegations back in order to deflect attention from itself or risk having its flaws exposed. 

Most complainants don’t want the accused’s head brought in on a platter; they simply want an explanation and an apology, and, an assurance that it won’t happen again.  If an organization just simply pulls up the drawbridge every time it gets criticized then it has to be wondered just what it is it doesn’t want anyone to see.  Such behaviour can only ruin its reputation over time and render it ultimately useless.  It brings its downfall upon itself.  All for the sake of a little humility and simple transparency.

Paul - can’t disagree with you.

Organisations vary as do local funding structures and other issues.

Issues like training / support/ supervision / competence are all crutial to the reputation and the actual delivery of advice. However I do wonder how many organisation really have the structure’s to deliver these effectively. For example, how many advice session supervisors actually have the level of competence to provide support & supervision to ensure the accuracy of advice at the level it is being given?

At the county level we provide specialist support to other (stautory & voluntary agencies) through a consultancy line and accept cases for representation by referral. CABx are the biggest users of those services - but rarely acknowledge the level of support they / their clients get from other agencies.

We also run training courses but take up has declined significantly over the last couple of years - feedback suggests this is due mainly to a lack of funds for training and the pressure of work (increasing number of participants fail to turn up on the day sighting pressure of work!). It does make me wonder where organisations / worker are actually getting the level of training they need to do their job.

This is just a personal view but I do feel the advice sector / individual organisations needs to have a debate about what it / they are actually delivering, compared to what they claim to be delivering and consider what they can deliver and sustain going forward (opps management speak!).

Ultimately the reputation of organisations and the sector depend on actually delivering what is claimed to be delivered and being realistic about what can’t be delivered.

Interesting discussion!
I am a volunteer adviser with a small CAB which, as with the larger one I worked in back in the ‘80s, prides itself on doing as good a job as possible.
I spent 2 years representing at Social Security tribunals in the 80s, mostly Single Payments and Living Together as Man and Wife, in those days.  I was mentored by a full time paid Welfare Rights Adviser, a post now gone with Legal Aid cuts I understand, and used to enjoy presenting and arguing case-law in person with the Presenting Officer (DWP rep, always present then) umpired by the Chair.  At this time, I spent 3 mornings a week volunteering at CAB, while my children were small.
Fast forward to 2009, I’m retired, and volunteering again with a CAB, smaller one this time.  All advisers are volunteers, all their work carefully checked, and I am certain we are providing a very good service.  No, we DON’T count filling in a GL24 as representing!  I represent, which means a lengthy interview, drafting a submission, including relevant case-law and a number of emails/phone calls back and forth with client.  Also letters to GPs etc.  I then attend with client, mostly for support, as my experience of tribunals (30-40 this time) is that they don’t want to hear more than a few sentences from the rep.  However, that support in INVALUABLE for the client.  Then, explaining follow-up re benefits etc to client, asking for Statement of reasons, if client likely to be re-assessed in next year or two. 
That’s what a CAB means by representing at tribunal, in their stats.

All this takes me about 15 hours a week, unpaid.  In the years between I worked as a paid adviser, for a Student Union, again using the NACAB info system plus CPAG, and again met many other advisers doing similar work and with plenty of ongoing training.

I am in no way unusual - there are CAB volunteers all over the country doing excellent work representing clients and helping them through the benefit maze.

Apologies for rant, but nearly all that I see about CABs is good quality advice.
Rose .

I’ve been linked in many ways with CABx for over 30 years - full time with local CABx and NACAB, as a volunteer, tutor and still a trustee.

Over that period there have been a lot of changes, some of which do worry me.

I’m too separate from the front line to be able to comment on the quality of advice in any bureau, let alone generically, but it used to be recognised that the quality of advice given depended upon which bureau someone walked into on which day of the week and who was working that day.  I hope that the increased emphasis on supervision and quality control has somewhat equalised that; although I think that it’s at some cost.

Perhaps the biggest change has been in the relationship between CitA (NACAB as was) and the bureaux.  It used to be that the central organisation was genuinely focussed on providing the information system, external links and other services.  The policy was set by the independent local CABx through area and annual meetings.  Now, it’s quite clear, it’s CitA centrally who are imposing the policies and practices on bureaux.  There are increasing numbers of national deals which local bureaux have to participate in and it’s also apparently common for bureaux to be given detailed instructions on operation by CitA staff.  As a trustee I’ve seen that happening myself.  I mentioned earlier the emphasis on supervision and quality control having some cost; as an example I’ve seen a CitA recommendation, that in order to improve case recording, a bureau should reduce advice giving hours to leave more time for writing up.  I think that puts the priority in the wrong place - it’s a defensive policy not an active one.

The other big problem is linked to the national deals mentioned above.  CABx, like much of the rest of the advice world, and other 3rd sector groups, are spending much of their time chasing and competing for funds.  That’s bad enough and has contributed to many problems for local working and relationships.  Worse though is that fact that many of these bits of money are not there strictly to provide advice work.  That means that bureaux are both tweaking the criteria for application and carrying out other pieces of work in the hope that some ‘profit’ can be made to support the core activities.  That adds to the administrative workload for managers ( I used to be an ‘organiser’ which seems subtly different) with reporting, statistics and all the other bureaucratic overheads.  Even where the money is directly for advice, it’s often there to enable, in practice, queue jumping where, for example, a housing association buys a package of advice for its tenants.  That means that somebody else sees their service received later, if at all.

That second issue is not, of course, unique to CABx, most voluntary groups chase funds, but perhaps CABx do more or win more because the brand helps.  I’d guess we all know bureaux where the core funding is outweighed by project funds, often short term.  That means that there can be huge swings in resources year to year in a bureau with consequential changes in staffing needs.  Bad enough for paid, trained experienced staff with uncertain employment and futures.  Worse in many ways for bureaux with lots of volunteers at the heart of the service.  When I was trained, an when I was an area tutor, there were 8 one day training sessions plus in-bureau sessions before people were let loose.  Now it takes an enormously long period for most volunteers to be able to advise, even supervised.  That makes it really really difficult to scale up operations to deliver the kind of short term projects where much of the money comes from.

I have a genuinely deep affection and commitment for the CAB service but I increasingly worry about where it’s priorities seem to lie.  I thought that the service got far too close to the last government, which has left some suspicion with the current administration, and it seems focussed of growth at the cost of its fundamental service ideal.  I’m afraid also that it, like much of the advice world, has bought into quality in too big a way.  I’m not suggesting that we shouldn’t provide good quality advice but that, in the old phrase, ‘excellence is the enemy of good enough’.  The same effort could produce more, good enough, advice to more people at a time of growing need and reducing resources if we focussed more on the advice and less on the supervision, recording, checking and qualifying side of the work.  That might, I’m afraid, lead to more of the mistakes that Neil found at the start of this thread, which would need to be sorted, but, i’ll leave you with this question, is it better to get advice to more people with some mistakes needing to be fixed than to have fewer mistakes but many people with no advice at all?

It’s a difficult one.

I work for an organisation which incorporates various projects, including Citizens Advice, under its umbrella. As a part time paid Benefits Specialist, I am full of admiration for the volunteer staff in the CAB. Here they are fortunate to have a wealth of experienced specialists to call upon. The CAB staff receive enquiries on a multitude of problems, benefits being just one of them (a large one though). It never ceases to amaze me how dedicated these unpaid volunteers are. As for mistakes, well we all make mistakes, no matter how experienced we are. The key is when a mistake is pointed out, to acknowledge, apologise, and learn. I know this happens here, and also at most other welfare agencies in this area. Trying to make political capital or score points doesn’t seem very helpful to me.

johnwilson - 15 August 2013 02:33 PM

Trying to make political capital or score points doesn’t seem very helpful to me.

Hopefully this discussion is not about points scoring but on open discussion about advice provision. today I was having a long discussion with some CABx and other advice centre workers about the pressure on their services. For CABx locally there is very little funding for paid specialist in welfare benefits or any other subject area. The funding that is available tends to be project specific, for example, rural outreach, McMillan.

The consensus of the discussion was the CAB and other advice centre’s are trying to do to much in both the breath and depth of advice they are trying to provide with the limitations of resources available and difficulties such as recruiting, training & retaining volunteer advisers given what they are asked to take on - multiple subject areas, complex information (legal knowledge), administrative systems etc.

I would suggest one of the dangers of the current demanding times is developing a siege mentality due to pressure of work / funding cuts etc and not looking at the ‘wider / long term picture’ and maintaining dialog with other organisation within which local issues about referral procedures or whatever can be addressed.

In the recent past welfare provision was in the main monolithic national and statutory, advice was plural, local, non statutory and voluntary.

With the advent of localism, plural localised independent advice, is being replaced with joined up contracted “non independent” professional advice, which runs alongside local welfare provision.

This is now steaming ahead with all sorts of unforseen consequences, eg foodbanks with eligibity criteria where those who are sanctioned, or not eligible because of their immigration status cannot apply….

I think its time to take a step back.

What matters most is that everyone has access to independent advice. (Mind you it would be cracking if it was also always right).

MartinB - 16 August 2013 10:14 AM

eligibity criteria where those who are sanctioned, or not eligible because of their immigration status cannot apply….quote]

If LAs have been involved in anyway in setting such criteria as part of Local Welfare Assistance, that would clearly be an unlawful fettering of discretion.  This shows why access to independent advice which can challenge Local Welfare Assistance and can advocate fearlessly on behalf of clients is so important and of course this is directly compromised if advice agencies are involved in sifting or processing applications in any way.

neilbateman - 16 August 2013 02:52 PM

If LAs have been involved in anyway in setting such criteria as part of Local Welfare Assistance, that would clearly be an unlawful fettering of discretion.

Here is another “interesting example” of boundaries becoming blurred…..note Family Mosaic turned this offer from Islington to “administer” DHP and local welfare assistance down.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/regulation/islington-devolves-dhp-decisions-to-landlords/6528178.article