Forum Home → Discussion → Other benefit issues → Thread
Telephony waiting times. Customer “service”?
Fuming after 50 minutes worth of Vivaldi, trying to get through to ESA. Without success. Does anyone actually work in the telephony centres anymore? If so, is it just one person dealing with calls for the entire country?
This is customer “dis-service”, and is absolutely unacceptable.
Client’s can’t email with enquiries, letters disappear into the black hole that is Wolverhampton, and nobody answers the phone.
Accountability is non-existent, and there appears to be no intention to improve matters any time soon.
I gave up on contacting DWP in all but complex needs cases about 6 months ago, instead making notes in UC journal or advising claimants to go home, put the kettle on, and wait to get through themselves.
However, at an Edinburgh adviser meeting a few weeks ago, it was highlighted by some other third sectors and the DWP reps present, that wait times for UC and PIP have been reduced to, on average, 10-15 mins, while ESA remains as you say 40-50.
Furthermore, UC calls should now go direct to the claimants WC or case worker (although this may be Edinburgh/Scotland specific from what I understood).
Will be experimenting with this in the future, to see if it is indeed the case. Would be uplifting it is!
An update to this saga. Two points:
1) The recorded intro (before you get to the eternity of Vivaldi) asks customers to divulge bank details, over the phone, to a recording. This appears to contravene all official advice to members of the public, NOT to ever divulge such details over the phone. (It also effectively prevents welfare rights officers, who do not ask customers for this information, as a rule, from accessing advisers).
2) Now Parliament is dissolved, it is effectively impossible to quickly get issues resolved, due to the difficulty of contacting DWP by phone or mail, and the fact that MPs can no longer fast-track enquiries. This fact appears not to have gone unnoticed at DWP, and we have suddenly got an influx of ridiculous decisions (ludicrously high recovery rates/inappropriate civil penalties/ laughable PIP decisions, etc). These will impact severely on the client’s involved (in one case causing severe hardship to an elderly and vulnerable client), and the means of redress have effectively been closed off.
Thoughts, anyone?
An update to this saga. Two points:
1) The recorded intro (before you get to the eternity of Vivaldi) asks customers to divulge bank details, over the phone, to a recording. This appears to contravene all official advice to members of the public, NOT to ever divulge such details over the phone. (It also effectively prevents welfare rights officers, who do not ask customers for this information, as a rule, from accessing advisers).
2) Now Parliament is dissolved, it is effectively impossible to quickly get issues resolved, due to the difficulty of contacting DWP by phone or mail, and the fact that MPs can no longer fast-track enquiries. This fact appears not to have gone unnoticed at DWP, and we have suddenly got an influx of ridiculous decisions (ludicrously high recovery rates/inappropriate civil penalties/ laughable PIP decisions, etc). These will impact severely on the client’s involved (in one case causing severe hardship to an elderly and vulnerable client), and the means of redress have effectively been closed off.
Thoughts, anyone?
1) With the intro I just say ‘I don’t know’ right at the start when it asks for the NINO. After c.3 ‘dont knows’ it puts you through to the queue to speak to an adviser. The last time I enquired I was told that you go through to the same queue whether you complete the security questions or not - I don’t know if this is still the case. I think the advice re. giving bank details is more about when you receive an unsolicited call (or perhaps make a call to a number that you do not 100% trust). Assuming the person is calling from a private place and can’t be overheard I can’t see the problem with giving bank details to a number you know is the DWP. Happy to be corrected if people think otherwise.
2) Do you have escalation contacts? I try and avoid using these just to shortcut problems with the main enquiry line but if the matter is particularly urgent or if I am time-limited (e.g. on outreach with later appointments) I’ll ring the escalations. They are almost always helpful in my experience. I’ve always been under the impression that the escalation contacts were shared fairly widely and are not just a LA thing - is this not the case? In terms of post issues, with MRs/evidence etc for Jobcentre Plus benefits I advise clients to take the evidence to their Jobcentre for it to be scanned across to the correct team as this circumvents the black hole of Wolverhampton. I’ve not had any post problems with PIP to be honest.
So from my perspective the problems are frustrating but are things that I can work around. Although this is not the case for a claimant who is unrepresented - they are really stuck at the moment in terms of getting through.
One issue that I haven’t found a work-around for is UC debt management. Their public number is constantly engaged (no waiting queue) and we have no escalation numbers or email. I saw a lady yesterday who is having deductions for a fine that she knows nothing about. She put a message on her journal and the case manager says they can’t see what it is for either and that she needs to contact debt management - which is impossible. I’ve sent another journal message asking the CM to get in touch with debt management by internal email to at least find out which court the fine originated from. Next stage would be a complaint I guess. But it is all time being eaten up by something that should be straightforward.
Great news!
Saves me having to constantly pretend to be a persecuted prince with a fortune in conflict diamonds. Once claimants are used to submitting bank details over the phone I can just start sending letters, emails and cold calling pretending to be DWP.
Furthermore, UC calls should now go direct to the claimants WC or case worker (although this may be Edinburgh/Scotland specific from what I understood).
Will be experimenting with this in the future, to see if it is indeed the case. Would be uplifting it is!
This is nation (I think we’re technically still a nation or an island or something) wide and has been since 2018. Requires the clients number to have been registered.
Like others though I rarely ring DWP now. Life is one long round of dictating journal entries; asking for reasonable adjustments; lodging complaints and letters before action. I can’t usually justify the waiting times to DWP as the best use of my time.
an influx of ridiculous decisions (ludicrously high recovery rates/inappropriate civil penalties/ laughable PIP decisions, etc).
Tbh, I haven’t noticed any difference in regard to ridiculousness of the decisions :)
However, something HAS to be done about Debt Management helpline.
Clients come in with Debt Management letter, which is impossible to comprehend, does not refer to any rules or regulations, does not name the benefit or Tax Credits debt for which they collect, does not give outstanding balance, does not say when the overpayment decision (if any) was made.
So we try calling DM, with a heavy heart, because we know its pointless. We then put a message on UCJ, only to get a response “try DM, perhaps first thing in the morning”
It is just a cruel farce.
Agree with the posts above, yesterday I spent an hour waiting for ESA to pick up while my cl. (who has ‘substance’ issues) was getting more and more agitated. when I did get through I asked if there was an address to send an authority form to so I could carry on without the cl but was told that I couldn’t and the only way to speak on behalf or the cl was by using implicit consent.
I know everyone is busy and so on but this is not a service that anyone should be happy with, least of all the DWP.