× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Work capability issues and ESA  →  Thread

Benefit Safeguards - policy issues

‹ First  < 5 6 7 8 9 >  Last ›

Owen_Stevens
forum member

UC Adviser, CPAG

Send message

Total Posts: 586

Joined: 1 October 2018

Dan - I sent you a Rightsnet message

_________________________________

This SSAC report includes a couple of things on vulnerability : https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-review-of-the-covid-19-temporary-measures/a-review-of-the-covid-19-temporary-measures-occasional-paper-24

Owen_Stevens
forum member

UC Adviser, CPAG

Send message

Total Posts: 586

Joined: 1 October 2018

There’s some interesting information about the way that DWP prioritise complaints in this FOI: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/dwp_improves_complaints_handling#incoming-1685798

The Department introduced a tactical Covid-19 complaints handling process from 9 July 2020 to prioritise our most vulnerable customers throughout the pandemic.

The change was a direct result of resources being redirected to front line services and progressing claims and issuing payments. As a complaints team, we needed to prioritise those customers in need of payment or additional support.

Our overall handling of a complaint has not changed, except that complaints are triaged depending on the issues raised and are initially prioritised as follows:

Potential Suicide cases
High profile cases
Vulnerable people
Outstanding claims
Payment related / severe hardship
Evictions / homelessness


Apparently DWP plan to review the effectiveness of the approach taken throughout the pandemic as part of an ongoing review into complaints handling: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2020-11-16/115726

Owen_Stevens
forum member

UC Adviser, CPAG

Send message

Total Posts: 586

Joined: 1 October 2018

I’ve been submitting some FOIs to try to find out a bit more about the case conferencing process. 

I had assumed that the guidance we have so far received (see https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/9141/P30/#79387) would be the tip of the iceberg.  For example - the guidance we have seems to be for administrative staff (with instructions to, for example, refer to Safeguarding Leaders when appropriate) but without any substantive instructions for the Safeguarding Leaders themselves. 

This has always been a problem with the safeguarding guidance - guidance says that a member of staff needs to check whether a safeguarding issue remains but there is no guidance about what that means or how a member of staff might go about checking a safeguarding concern. 

So far I haven’t been successful in coming up with anything (see attached).  Hopefully there is more guidance hidden away somewhere.

[ Edited: 6 Jan 2023 at 11:29 am by Owen_Stevens ]

File Attachments

Owen_Stevens
forum member

UC Adviser, CPAG

Send message

Total Posts: 586

Joined: 1 October 2018

Safeguarding Adults Review in which it was identified that communication between agencies, including DWP, was poor: https://www.mktogether.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/fv_-Adult-D-Overview-report_Nov2020.pdf

File Attachments

Owen_Stevens
forum member

UC Adviser, CPAG

Send message

Total Posts: 586

Joined: 1 October 2018

Correspondence between the Chair of the Work and Pensions Select Committee and the Permanent Secretary

Touches on pinned notes and on safeguarding issues, among other issues

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/3842/documents/38538/default/

Owen_Stevens
forum member

UC Adviser, CPAG

Send message

Total Posts: 586

Joined: 1 October 2018

DNS is reporting that newly released DWP IPRs show staff repeatedly failed to follow guidance: https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/dwp-staff-repeatedly-failed-to-follow-suicide-threat-guidance-secret-death-reviews-reveal/

[ Edited: 11 Dec 2020 at 12:12 pm by Owen_Stevens ]
Owen_Stevens
forum member

UC Adviser, CPAG

Send message

Total Posts: 586

Joined: 1 October 2018

John has shared some of the IPRs which formed the basis of the story linked to in the previous post.  These can be found here: https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/8346/P75/#80084

It’s interesting to note that DWP refused to share the IPRs for the period April 2019 - November 2020 on the basis that they engage an exemption from disclosure because it relates to the formulation or development of government policy.

[ Edited: 11 Dec 2020 at 12:18 pm by Owen_Stevens ]
Owen_Stevens
forum member

UC Adviser, CPAG

Send message

Total Posts: 586

Joined: 1 October 2018

Owen_Stevens
forum member

UC Adviser, CPAG

Send message

Total Posts: 586

Joined: 1 October 2018

Another FOI regarding the inroduction of an escalation process into DWP safeguarding procedures

[ Edited: 6 Jan 2023 at 11:30 am by Owen_Stevens ]

File Attachments

Owen_Stevens
forum member

UC Adviser, CPAG

Send message

Total Posts: 586

Joined: 1 October 2018

Another FOI response on the case conferencing guidance. The guidance provided in the earlier FOI (IR2020/46517) was just the three bits of guidance already shared on the thread (relating to UC, PIP, and ESA)

[ Edited: 6 Jan 2023 at 11:31 am by Owen_Stevens ]

File Attachments

Owen_Stevens
forum member

UC Adviser, CPAG

Send message

Total Posts: 586

Joined: 1 October 2018

The recent WPSC session included some relevant information

DWP have introduced an additional support marker which is more visible to DWP staff.  Debbie Abrahams expresses surprise given earlier DWP resistance.

Every DBC now has a vulnerable customer champion - it would be interesting to know what is involved in this role and whether this is a substantive role.  I’ve come across ‘champions’ in DWP who were unaware that they had been designated as a champion for a particular issue.

Also, DWP ‘have been talking to Capita and also Atos/IAS about how they are changing some of their processes for revisiting decisions on whether a face-to-face assessment is required’.

The Rightsnet write up: https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/welfare-rights/news/item/dwp-permanent-secretary-tells-work-and-pensions-committee-that-additional-support-markers-to-identify-vulnerable-claimants-will-become-watermarks-in-it-system-later-this-month
The transcript (See Q425-431): https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/1630/pdf/

[ Edited: 6 Jan 2023 at 11:33 am by Owen_Stevens ]
Owen_Stevens
forum member

UC Adviser, CPAG

Send message

Total Posts: 586

Joined: 1 October 2018

https://www.leighday.co.uk/latest-updates/blog/2021-blogs/following-the-conclusion-of-philippa-days-inquest-what-could-be-next-for-vulnerable-benefits-claimants/

During Pip’s inquest, the Coroner heard evidence of improvements the DWP and Capita had brought in to prevent anyone else being treated as Pip was, including, the day before the conclusion, a commitment by Capita to provide specific training on Personality Disorders to its disability assessors. The prevention of harm to others who suffer Emotionally unstable personality disorder (EUPD) and accountability for what happened to Pip have been her family’s key objectives and they welcomed the Coroner’s decision to exercise his (sadly limited) powers to compel the DWP to address matters that he felt that he felt could cause further deaths. The Coroner identified three areas of concern:

- Mental health training for DWP call handlers. The Inquest heard that this has not to date formed part of their mandatory training programme before taking calls.
- Record keeping at the DWP. The Coroner found that poor record keeping had contributed to poor decision making regarding Pip’s claim, without relevant factors being taken into account, and that there had been no evidence of improvements in this respect since Pip’s death.
- The change of assessment process. This is the process by which someone can seek to change the mode of a disability assessment to be carried out by Capita (on DWP’s behalf), for example from a clinic assessment to a home assessment. This process was one of the core issues at Philippa’s Inquest as a letter confirming that she would be required to attend a clinic assessment (despite repeated requests made by Pip’s community psychiatric nurses to change this to a home assessment) was found on Pip’s bed after she had taken the action which proved fatal on 8 August 2019. The Coroner found that the evidence of Philippa’s case showed that Capita’s system was “unable to correct even obvious errors” and was not persuaded that there was sufficient “commitment on the part of Capita to improve this area”.

Although a Prevention of Future Deaths report issued by a Coroner cannot compel any specific action to be taken, the DWP and Capita are obliged to provide a response outlining steps that have been or will be taken to address the ongoing risk to life which the Coroner has identified. Both reports will be published on the Chief Coroner’s website.

[ Edited: 9 Feb 2021 at 12:54 pm by Owen_Stevens ]
Ros
Administrator

editor, rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 1323

Joined: 6 June 2010

Going back to the recent Work and Pensions Committee evidence session - an FOI response has clarified that the new ‘watermark’ to make additional support needs more clearly visible on DWP online case files only applies to PIP -

Additional support markers to identify vulnerable claimants will become ‘watermarks’

Owen_Stevens
forum member

UC Adviser, CPAG

Send message

Total Posts: 586

Joined: 1 October 2018

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 3196

Joined: 7 January 2016

That’s really distressing reading, be warned if you do read the report.

This in particular is damning.

The failure to administer the claim in such a way as to avoid exacerbating Philippa Day’s pre-existing mental health problems was the predominant factor, save for her severe mental illness, affecting a decision taken by Philippa Day to take an overdose of her prescribed insulin on the 7th or 8th August 2019.

The distress caused by the administration of Philippa Day’s welfare benefits claim led to Philippa Day suffering acute distress and exacerbated many of her other chronic stressors. Were it not for these problems, it is unlikely that Philippa Day would have taken an overdose of her prescribed insulin on 7th or 8th August 2019.

In doing so, it was, at the least, Philippa Day’s intention to place her life at risk and to cause herself serious physical harm. It is not possible to determine on the available evidence whether or not it was her intention to thereby end her life.