DWP dirty tactics

tomtom256

mattcanary wrote: »

But the DWP didn't know that he would have made that decision when they called him.


So their subsequent decision to delay the start date for claiming JSA is based upon their not knowing the reason for his not answering the call - and therefore based upon unfair reasoning.

How is it unfair resoning, he didn't answer the call and the letter states he didn't answer the call or whatever the wording is.

They didn't state as you refused to answer as you were, on the toilet, having sex, shopping, at the doctors, on the treadmill etc.

The fact is the OP failed to answer the telephone call, regardless of who it was from, I would presume they tried a few times, buitdon't know.

But the same fact remains the same, the OP failed to answer the telephone, they saw the caller display and chose not to answer it.

There own actions resulted in the issue of any payment being delayed, they need to take responsibility for their actions and get over it.

epitome

tomtom256 wrote: »

How is it unfair resoning, he didn't answer the call and the letter states he didn't answer the call or whatever the wording is.

They didn't state as you refused to answer as you were, on the toilet, having sex, shopping, at the doctors, on the treadmill etc.

The fact is the OP failed to answer the telephone call, regardless of who it was from, I would presume they tried a few times, buitdon't know.

But the same fact remains the same, the OP failed to answer the telephone, they saw the caller display and chose not to answer it.

There own actions resulted in the issue of any payment being delayed, they need to take responsibility for their actions and get over it.

IMO failing to contact a claimant by phone is not just cause for changing the date of their claim. If the law allows this then it is IMO a dirty trick that the government has schemed up to save money.

As the communication is by online application, you would expect the governemt to be able to notify a WFI appointment by email. Or to have safeguards built into the online process, like, at the end of the claim telling the customer that DWP will try to call them but the customer must in the next 2 working days call a certain number to book a WFI i.e. 08000 556688

whodathunkit,
Why do you think I believe that the government's money doesn't come -for the most part- from the countries citizens?

whodathunkit

epitome wrote: »

IMO failing to contact a claimant by phone is not just cause for changing the date of their claim. If the law allows this then it is IMO a dirty trick that the government has schemed up to save money.

As the communication is by online application, you would expect the governemt to be able to notify a WFI appointment by email. Or to have safeguards built into the online process, like, at the end of the claim telling the customer that DWP will try to call them but the customer must in the next 2 working days call a certain number to book a WFI i.e. 08000 556688

whodathunkit,
Why do you think I believe that the government's money doesn't come -for the most part- from the countries citizens?

They did contact the claimant by phone, he just didn't answer it; it's the same as if they'd written to him and he'd put the letter in the drawer unread.

See post #56 and explain it to mattcanary while you're at it.

nannytone_2

mattcanary wrote: »

Eh?
I have already stated why it is unrealistic for organisations to expect anyone to be at their beck and call, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day.


More reasons - you are being served in a shop, you are having sex, you are on the toilet, you are driving a car, you are transporting heavy objects into a vehicle, you are at the gym on a treadmill listening to music on your Ipod to encourage you to keep on running, in a doctors' room, donating blood, having a minor operation in hospital, etc, etc, etc




I can hardly see Tescos just throwing away your wallet if you leave it in their shop by accident, just because you didn't answer their phone call.
The situation is no different. Losing your wallet means you may be without money, as does delaying your benefit claim if you don't answer a phone call from DWP (whether through a good reason or not).




How are the DWP going to know why someone doesn;t answer their phone call to them?
Obviously they won't know - so they shouldn;t penalise people without giving them a chance to get back to them.


I fail to see how anyone can fail to understand this.

or you are sitting, counting how many times your phone rings and not answering it ......

mattcanary

whodathunkit wrote: »

They did contact the claimant by phone, he just didn't answer it; it's the same as if they'd written to him and he'd put the letter in the drawer unread.

See post #56 and explain it to mattcanary while you're at it.

There is no difference between "saving money" and saving the taxpayer money" - at least there isn't at the government's end.
It means they keep more of the money they have.


Problem is, they have not reduced their expenditure on benefits since changing their policies (failing in their plan - at least so far)
They have reduced expenditure on JSA payments but not their total expenditure on benefits.

mattcanary

nannytone wrote: »

or you are sitting, counting how many times your phone rings and not answering it ......

I am talking in general terms. Not in the OP's case specifically.

lighting_up_the_chalice

mattcanary wrote: »

There is no difference between "saving money" and saving the taxpayer money" - at least there isn't at the government's end.
It means they keep more of the money they have.


Problem is, they have not reduced their expenditure on benefits since changing their policies (failing in their plan - at least so far)
They have reduced expenditure on JSA payments but not their total expenditure on benefits.

Yet.......

whodathunkit

mattcanary wrote: »

There is no difference between "saving money" and saving the taxpayer money" - at least there isn't at the government's end.
It means they keep more of the money they have.


Problem is, they have not reduced their expenditure on benefits since changing their policies (failing in their plan - at least so far)
They have reduced expenditure on JSA payments but not their total expenditure on benefits.

Where - in their little government piggy bank?

nannytone_2

as has been said ...
the government have no money.
none of the public sector agencies have money.
all the money they use comes from taxation.
the money is tacpayers money

mattcanary

nannytone wrote: »

as has been said ...
the government have no money.
none of the public sector agencies have money.
all the money they use comes from taxation.
the money is tacpayers money

Not when it leaves the taxpayers' pocket, it isn't.


It then becomes the country's money.
Designed to best serves the needs of the country as a whole, and all citizens within the country as much of the time as possible.
And not each individual taxpayer.
One taxpayer is not the same as the next taxpayer. Even if neither claims any type of benefit.




Incidentally, the proportion of direct taxes compared to indirect taxes that the UK government collects is low, compared to most other developed countries.
Indirect taxes affect those on benefits on average just as much as those people not on benefits (unlike direct taxes)