× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Other benefit issues  →  Thread

No email correspondence with DWP unless can make case for ’reasonable adjustment’

Ros
Administrator

editor, rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 1323

Joined: 6 June 2010

Written answer from Justin Tomlinson to question from Frank Field -

‘Claimants who have a valid reasonable adjustment in place are permitted to receive correspondence from the Department by email should they request it. Claimants who do not have a reasonable adjustment in place are not permitted to receive correspondence from the Department by email as email is not classed as secure and there is an increased risk of data loss which could have a negative impact on both the individual and the Department.

Email must be used as a reasonable adjustment where it is requested by an individual disabled citizen who finds it difficult or impossible to communicate via other channels. Requesting communications via email must be for a valid reason which relates to the individual’s disability. Once email as a reasonable adjustment has been agreed the customer will be advised of the risks of data travelling over the unsecure network and being seen by 3rd parties via the confirmation email ‘disclaimer’ they receive.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2018-12-03/198187/

ClairemHodgson
forum member

Solicitor, SC Law, Harrow

Send message

Total Posts: 1221

Joined: 13 April 2016

the nanny state with a vengeance…

Chrissum
forum member

WRAMAS, Bristol City Council

Send message

Total Posts: 240

Joined: 24 August 2017

But surely the government have a way of sending such e-mails securely? If not then does this really constitute a “reasonable adjustment”, even with the warning?

Vonny
forum member

Welfare rights adviser - Social Inclusion Unit, Swansea

Send message

Total Posts: 486

Joined: 17 June 2010

Don’t they need an email address to send a security code to be able to progress a UC claim?

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

DWP are full of bizarre assertions for which they’re unable to provide one iota of evidence. The argument for explicit consent was recently espoused by Neil Couling at GMWRAG as being about ID theft; ex partners; dodgy creditors etc. You ask for the number of times such things have occurred and mysteriously there are no numbers.

Is email insecure? Absolutely. Is it less secure than snail mail? That seems rather unlikely to most commentators. Putting paper inside paper with glue and allowing it to definitely pass through multiple machines and many hands. Hmm.

I suspect this is more about management of expectations. People don’t expect amazingly quick responses to letters. They have different expectations when it comes to email. DWP are also in a tad of bovva once there is a clear audit trail of correspondence. Can’t imagine why they wouldn’t want that!

Stuart
Administrator

rightsnet editor

Send message

Total Posts: 891

Joined: 21 March 2016

... meanwhile for PIP, written answer from Sarah Newton says -

’ A general email enquiry address is not currently available but work is underway to introduce a new online contact route as soon as possible in 2019. Where claimants require contact via email as a reasonable adjustment to make a claim, Independent Assessment Services continue to make arrangements to do so. There are a range of contact routes currently available to claimants, including a free phone enquiry line, written enquiries by post or a range of alternative formats including braille, large print, text phone & sign video to assist claimants within the claim process.’

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

Braille always sounds so impressive doesn’t it. Used by 4% of the 4% of people who are registered who have no vision at all.