DWP refuses to copy adviser in on PC reply

We have encountered such intractable problems trying to get a reply from the Pension Service over a relatively simple matter (making a flippin’ decision on something) that we asked the claimant’s MP to intervene.

After a very long time, PS has finally replied - but specifically asked the MP’s office not to copy anything to us.

Given we sent authorisation etc, I can see no good cause for DWP to behave in this manner.

What betting they invoke GDPR and then refuse to say how it applies?

Has anyone had any similar experiences lately?

That’s comedy gold. What exactly do they think will happen next, aside from being ridiculed on a forum such as this?

I’m pushing for local PS liaison to resume 12 years after it ceased with a promise that the slack would be picked up by local partnership managers. Conversations across GM between LPMs and advice services across GM (that I am aware of at the time of writing) in that 12 year period about any aspect of the PS or PC? Nil.

I don’t know why we’re worried. PS have stated that all will be well from next month. So that’s alright then….

DWP’s attitude is ridiculous.  However, what’s to stop the MP giving your client a copy of the letter, and them passing it on to you?

Ruth_T - 30 January 2023 08:39 PM

DWP’s attitude is ridiculous.  However, what’s to stop the MP giving your client a copy of the letter, and them passing it on to you?

Yes, according to DWP the claimant may have the letter but we, apparently, may not!

And as you say, they will then send it to us.

Unless it’s marked ‘No Koppying - Ofishul’ or something???

You’re not gonna believe this:

‘The DWP has explained they had authorisation for you to receive information regarding the request you raised on 1 June 2022, when you informed them of a change in [claimant’s] circumstances and requested a copy of the PC award letter. They state each authorisation is only valid for a single request unless a customer does not have the capacity to deal with their own affairs in which case DWP would appoint a permanent representative.’

Andrew Dutton - 31 January 2023 09:47 AM

You’re not gonna believe this:

‘The DWP has explained they had authorisation for you to receive information regarding the request you raised on 1 June 2022, when you informed them of a change in [claimant’s] circumstances and requested a copy of the PC award letter. They state each authorisation is only valid for a single request unless a customer does not have the capacity to deal with their own affairs in which case DWP would appoint a permanent representative.’

I am going to believe it because that is explicitly how they manage these things now for GDPR - they’re saying any authorisation for you to act for the client is limited to the specific circumstance in question.

However, given that their reply to the MP is inherently about the exact same situation, this does escalate their absolute clownery to another level really. I’d consider a complaint to highlight how ridiculous their stance is as well as the delay that caused the need for the MP in the first place.

Hi Paul - I have sent the MP the DWP’s own guidance on dealing with representatives and suggested there is nothing in there to support this outrageous attempt to obstruct us,

I have also pointed out that they never replied to the initial query and, by their own silly logic, they should at least do that.

I was hoping this was just a one-off rogue banana-brain at DWP who didn’t understand owt, but I suppose someone replying to an MP has to be fairly senior(?) That is worrying. 

I haven’t come across this GDPR shenanigans from the PS, are they seriously going to try this on? Has Operation: Obstruct arrived at the non-UC benefits?

It’s even more amusing because people at UC are now exploring how consent works in practice and, whilst they have clearly been given some corporate doublethink line that they cannot possibly look at implied consent, there does appear to be an acceptance that the feedback they’re getting - that DWP have no business in dictating how long a consent is for and that GDPR does not require that - is valid and being taken on board.

However, this is like whack-a-mole. You can hammer the UC mole but the PC one will then pop up.

Claimants, disgusted by DWP’s attitude, have forwarded DWP’s correspondence.

Extracts from my further response to their MP:

It would of course have been far simpler had DWP just copied us in to their letters; all they have done is put [Claimants] through additional stress and delay, all for an argument over authorisation in which I believe DWP to be quite in the wrong.

I would ask on behalf of {Claimants] who are very unhappy with the way this matter has been handled, not least about the exclusion of their adviser, that the following points be taken up with DWP:

• A ‘system fault’ is blamed for there being no award of the second carer premium for such a long time: could they be more specific? For how long did this fault affect the claim? Was it just this claim, or was it a widespread problem?
• Is any offer of a special payment to be made to [Claimants] to reflect the long delay and the ‘system fault’?
• Whether or not DWP regarded itself as able to reply to this service, it was aware of the problem of the second carer premium from June of 2022 via our letters. Why has it taken until now to resolve the issue? Why were [Claimants] not kept informed directly?
• If DWP considered they did not hold authorisation for us to act, why did they not communicate with {Claimants] and…ask them if they wished us to continue to act?
• Or write to us stating their policy regarding authorisations?
• Could DWP please produce the legal justification of their claim that authorisations are on a one-off basis only? (This has been the argued line from Universal Credit, not with any other benefits, and it [is] worthy of note that UC is currently revising its approach. I have taken direct part in the research associated with this)
• Could DWP also specify from when this policy has applied? And why advice agencies appear not to have been told about it?
• How does DWP reconcile this alleged policy with its… guidelines for dealing with representatives?
• If the provisions of GDPR happen to be cited in defence of the DWP’s position, could they specify which specific provision of GDPR drives their policy?
• Can DWP explain why they effectively take control of the claimant’s data and decide who can be told what, which seems clean contrary to what the ICO has said about control of personal information? It should be in the hands of the claimant, not for DWP to decide.
• Could DWP please address the wording of our Authorisation form, which quite clearly carries the authorisation forward to mandatory reconsideration/appeal stages?
• Could DWP please explain how explaining something to us and taking actions to remedy problems caused by their own delays can, as they claim, ‘relieve the customer of their responsibilities?’ Nothing about us acting for someone makes us a substitute claimant,  we are not the appointee and are not attempting to arrogate the role; this argument appears specious. By seeking information and remedies to problems, we are asking DWP to address its own responsibilities, we are not taking away any of the claimant’s rights or responsibilities. 
• Finally - cui bono? Who benefits from this restrictive policy? It seems certain to require multiple and repeated written authorisations which will cause impossible bureaucratic problems for advisers and additional delay and stress for claimants. It does not seem to be a policy designed to help members of the public who need support from a third party.