Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
UC ignoring online authorisation, refuse to discuss without client present
A colleague reports that:
‘I have just been informed by a call handler that written authority in the client’s online journal,
Is not acceptable, and the client must be present for the call, or request a call back themselves’
The call-person then stated this was ‘policy going forwards’.
Random poorly-trained UC operative, or new going-backwards policy???
Poor training. Very poor - mine was online authority valid for 1 day, and needs to be renewed for every day you call on behalf of ...
From a colleague:
‘When put through to a call centre operator at DWP, they have a script screen in front of them.
They ask you a series of questions – eg client DOB, what benefits they are on, or, like today- a question about their partner (which I didn’t have a clue about). As each one is answered correctly, they click on that box. They need to click every box BEFORE the call handler is allowed access to the client record. So – get one question wrong, and they wouldn’t be able to see if the client had written authority in their journal anyway! ☹
Apparently, they have tightened up due to safeguarding issues, and the risk of potential “cuckooing”!’
Interesting they have recognised the potential fraud problem. But they apply a ‘solution’ which may cut out genuine advisers, but let ‘cuckoos’ straight in, as they will know all the answers!
Has anyone else heard this line?
I’d be interested to know if this is a widespread problem - if it is I will take it up
I think this has been a problem with all benefit phone lines for a while. I’ve pretty much given up on implicit consent and ensure that I’ve got the claimant on the line (or on standby waiting for a call) when I phone DWP now. Definitely a system failure when the helpline adviser can’t see if there’s a note of authorisation on the system without knowing the claimant’s dog’s inside leg measurement.
Oh for the old days when name, date of birth, address and national insurance number got access to the system.
Thanks Mairi - anyone else having similar issues?
Hi all (long-time Rightsnet lurker in a previous-ish life as a policy person) - just coming here to flag that I’ve had the same issue today. Client had given explicit consent on the journal but was told the call-handler wouldn’t be able to access their account in any circumstances unless they were physically present. At one point I was told ‘I’m allowed to talk to you but I’m not able to give you any information or look up any information myself’.
[ Edited: 25 Jul 2023 at 10:10 am by Ayaz M ]Not noted this thread previously. I think it’s fair to say that most on our side of things have given up on implied consent. DWP simply aren’t capable of delivering the training to their staff and it’s a pretty much non-existent thing. Nowadays the easier option is a conference call.
That is “easier” (in non UC cases) in terms of making a call and then waiting up to 90 minutes to talk to a half-informed human. In UC cases it’s about getting the client to make the call (so that UC recognise their number and answer quickly) and then adding us to a conference call. Easier said than done in most cases so we end up making the call and enduring the usual wait times.
Wonder if anyone in DWP knows anything about systems theory and failure demand?
Yes, we’re hearing regular reports now about implicit consent guidelines are not being followed or routinely ignored or told there is no such thing.
We got this last week from someone on the Serious Case and Risk Panel team in DWP.
I have an answer to your question regarding whether DWP can share/provide progress updates with external organisations including Alternative Offices (AO’s)…
I can confirm that we cannot share customer information with anyone other than the customer or an appointee. The only exception would be if we gained consent from the customer, whilst they were with the external organisation.
We’re going back to ask why this Working with representatives: guidance for DWP staff dpesn’t apply anymore in that case?
This is steering into OSEF territory. National issue and a serious one at that.
We had an update from DWP recently at which they referred to working with ‘trusted partners’. We however have been told even if DWP staff know us and have met our staff, they will still apply the same rules no matter what. Why in Hades is a ‘trusted partner’ approach not developed re. advice services? It has been suggested, but the suggestion has been ignored.
A colleague is trying to get answers about how we help people in situations where:
- claimant has no capacity to sign authorisation
- case requires immediate attention, claimant is vulnerable and is not able to provide consent in writing/online
-claimant lives many miles away and we have phone contact only
-claimant in hospital or care home
- claimant wants an appointee but DWP decides the appointee is unsuitable and so insists on dealing only with the claimant, who cannot manage without support
No replies.
This is going to get worse as UC gobbles up more and more vulnerable claimants. I have asked time and time again what DWP is going to do to help vulnerable claimants - silence follows.
DWP seems still to be trying to stymie legitimate advice services (using the excuse that we may be evil fraudsters trying to steal personal information). Meanwhile the real fraudsters will have their tactics good and ready for fleecing vulnerable UC claimants as managed migration moves on.
Hi Ayaz!
That said…
Certainly with PIP it’s almost impossible to access implicit consent these days; the olden days where advisers understood that we don’t collect information that we don’t need are long gone; being asked previous addresses of clients, bank details or dependents’ details isn’t unusual. When you’ve been on hold for 45 minutes it’s a real bind not to swear at DWP call handlers some days.
And don’t speak to me about Debt Management; they have placed a byzantine requirement that not even claimants can cross; asking the current balance of an outstanding overpayment which has been being recovered for 2 years already! Madness…
This note has just come around from the last OSEF meeting after reports of the PIP problems and discussing cases with advisers.
With regard to implicit consent (alternative enquiry), we have issued a further compliance note to all staff but if you continue to receive issues, please raise specific cases via the Disability Services Advocacy Team.
With regard to staff unwilling or unable to answer or resolve an issue, if the Case Worker is unable to resolve the query they should transfer through to someone that can. This is our Service Centre process to enable a once and done approach, if this is not happening specific examples would be useful to enable us to investigate further.
I have absolutely no idea who the Disability Services Advocacy Team actually are I’m afraid.
Jeepers. It would be easier to find cases where implied consent has been used properly.
This note has just come around from the last OSEF meeting after reports of the PIP problems and discussing cases with advisers.
With regard to implicit consent (alternative enquiry), we have issued a further compliance note to all staff but if you continue to receive issues, please raise specific cases via the Disability Services Advocacy Team.
With regard to staff unwilling or unable to answer or resolve an issue, if the Case Worker is unable to resolve the query they should transfer through to someone that can. This is our Service Centre process to enable a once and done approach, if this is not happening specific examples would be useful to enable us to investigate further.I have absolutely no idea who the Disability Services Advocacy Team actually are I’m afraid.
Me too until I googled and even then…...................
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/personal-independence-payment-upskilling-capita-external-stakeholders-tickets-524709318697 and https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fdisabilitybenefitsconsortium.files.wordpress.com%2F2022%2F02%2Fdbc-benefit-assessments-advice-advocacy-2022.02.12-final-.docx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK and https://brc.org.uk/news/hr/dwp-job-fairs-and-access-to-work-awareness-sessions/
Someone from the Disability Services Advocacy Team came to speak to the North West Mental Health Welfare Rights Advisers Group in May 2022. This is from our minutes:-
1. (a) What does the Advocacy Team do? Our Main role is to run upskilling and awareness sessions for Disability Services Benefits and Grants. These include PIP, DLA Child , DLA Adult, IIDB. And Access to Work. More information will be shared in the PIP presentation.
(b) Can we contact the Advocacy team directly by email/phone? If you want to book an upskillingand awareness session you can email us - DWP Disability Services Advocacy Team <DisabilityServices.AdvocacyTeam@dwp.gov.uk>
(c) Can claimants contact the Advocacy Team directly? No – if claimants want to contact in regard to their Benefit or Grant they need to contact that specific benefit or Grant by the free phone numbers provided on Gov.UK
So it seems advocacy is for DWP not claimants.
Would be great if that has changed though.
From a colleague:
‘When put through to a call centre operator at DWP, they have a script screen in front of them.
They ask you a series of questions – eg client DOB, what benefits they are on, or, like today- a question about their partner (which I didn’t have a clue about). As each one is answered correctly, they click on that box. They need to click every box BEFORE the call handler is allowed access to the client record. So – get one question wrong, and they wouldn’t be able to see if the client had written authority in their journal anyway! ☹
Apparently, they have tightened up due to safeguarding issues, and the risk of potential “cuckooing”!’Interesting they have recognised the potential fraud problem. But they apply a ‘solution’ which may cut out genuine advisers, but let ‘cuckoos’ straight in, as they will know all the answers!
Has anyone else heard this line?
I’ve had this - was told to get answers to their security questions then ring back, pointed out that was really unsafe for the client and they said that was the process. Put in an online complaint and that sped it up
Me too. Moaning about this just yesterday. I asked for a manager (not the callcentre workers fault and they couldn’t fix it) but apparently there wasn’t one. Who knew this system was run on leaderless lines, anarchy in the UC? I pushed and had it agreed that a manager would call me back - no one has but I got through later having got claimant details that I would rather not have.
This is going to cause all sorts of problems and makes a mockery of the policy on working with reps.
It remains the case that DWP staff turnover is such that they don’t get trained to recognise the clear difference between security questions, which are for claimants only, and implied consent questions, which are for the rest of us. The security questions weed out cuckooing etc.
Their screen allows them access to the latter implied consent stuff still as I understand it but they appear entirely unaware that it does. Literally emailed the working with reps. guidance to the manager of one of these teams. He’d never heard of it; never seen it before and didn’t want to deal with it. An appalling state of affairs.