Dwp data breach

13

Comments

  • pmlindyloo
    pmlindyloo Posts: 13,048
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    edited 22 July 2018 at 10:21AM
    Ladidi wrote: »
    We handed it over to DWP and it was in turn handed over to DWP complaints. Im going to assume its the same place/people dealing with the issues.

    Our MP has forwarded our complaint onto Mr Andrew Rhodes DWP director General. When I advised them of this, the reply was all that will happen there is, they ask us if we have investigated and what out decision outcome was which is what I am discussing with you now.

    Should I email them?

    No harm in emailing - not completing sure what his role is. Your MP has gone to the very top - always a good idea.

    I am totally on your side regarding this - it is appalling but am unsure about the compensation part. A terrible mistake has been made in this case but I do think we can get 'hung up' by the fact it is the DWP. Private companies make mistakes all the time but somehow when it is the DWP we think it is worse. Private companies can afford to pay out compensation but, in the end, DWP is funded by tax payers' money so I do have a slight problem with going for high amounts. And despite the awful consequences of this I am not sure what financial compensation would be suitable.

    Please don't think I am not on your side because I am. I have seen the wrong name on reports etc etc but never medical evidence being sent to the wrong person.

    What would I do?

    Let the investigation take its course and see what they decide. Then negotiate.

    The Citizens Advice would be very interested in this as part of their social policy.

    Would I be naughty to suggest that your local newspaper might be interested too? (Is that allowed when an investigation is ongoing?)

    And one other thing - being put back on your previous benefit. My suspicion is that someone has read this:

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/713553/financial-redress-for-maladministration-dwp-staff-guide.pdf

    and has interpreted it to mean that you both should be reinstated to your former position as a result of their 'maladministration'.

    I suspect when this is all over another assessment will take place!
  • Ladidi
    Ladidi Posts: 34 Forumite
    custardy wrote: »
    Maybe you don't have much experience of work and disciplinary's.
    However how can you know the outcome with knowing the facts/outcome to be disclosed?

    Complaint handler advised other party what disciplinary would entail.
  • Ladidi
    Ladidi Posts: 34 Forumite
    pmlindyloo wrote: »
    No harm in emailing - not completing sure what his role is. Your MP has gone to the very top - always a good idea.

    I am totally on your side regarding this - it is appalling but am unsure about the compensation part. A terrible mistake has been made in this case but I do think we can get 'hung up' by the fact it is the DWP. Private companies make mistakes all the time but somehow when it is the DWP we think it is worse. Private companies can afford to pay out compensation but, in the end, DWP is funded by tax payers' money so I do have a slight problem with going for high amounts. And despite the awful consequences of this I am not sure what financial compensation would be suitable.

    Please don't think I am not on your side because I am. I have seen the wrong name on reports etc etc but never medical evidence being sent to the wrong person.

    What would I do?

    Let the investigation take its course and see what they decide. Then negotiate.

    The Citizens Advice would be very interestedin this as part of their social policy.

    Would I be naughty to suggest that your local newspaper might be interested too? (Is that allowed when an investigation is ongoing?)

    And one other thing - being put back on your previous benefit. My suspicion is that someone ahs read this:

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/713553/financial-redress-for-maladministration-dwp-staff-guide.pdf

    and has interpreted it to mean that you both should be reinstated to your former position as a result of their 'maladministration'.

    I suspect when this is all over another assessment will take place!

    I'm completely with you in regards tom compensating for distress and alarm caused. Whats fair and proportionate? Have they done enough? Are they taking the complaint seriously enough on your behalf or their own? Yes their staff are facing disciplinary, I'm sorry that has happened to them. But, they are the cause of this. If they took due care and attention with the information they are handling and treat the customers with the respect they deserve they wouldn't be errors of this magnitude.

    How do you determine whats a fair amount of compensation? I don't have the answer? Should they be made to recompense. Yes. Should they use benefits reinstatement as way recompensing? NO! Benefits are not a form of compensation. They deemed BOTH parties NOT entitled to benefits. Advised to take to tribunal. They messed up. They investigate. They come back with, 3 members of staff facing disciplinary.. They offer BOTH parties to reinstate benefits. and award £50 compensation. Are they awarding benefits and stopping tribunal because they know they should have done and made an error? or are they awarding benefits as a way of compensating? I cant help but think the latter seeing how they stood their ground when they denied benefits and didn't care. As i have previously said, just because you claim benefits does not mean they should be allowed to treat you with contempt.

    I'm on the same thinking as you, they are rushing this for some reason. They had the complaint a week last friday and by friday gone in their eyes its all done and dusted with what they deem a resolution.
  • FBaby
    FBaby Posts: 18,367
    First Anniversary First Post Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    Because of this breach and what was revealed they had to sit down with their parent and go into detail with what was revealed causing considerable distress. Should the department pay for that?
    Yes they should but not by reinstating benefits they are not entitled to and after reviewing the evidence of the distress that has been caused as a result.

    And no, the other party shouldn't be compensated especially when they used this breach to cause trouble when they could have just returned the letter and reported the breach.
  • custardy
    custardy Posts: 38,365
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Ladidi wrote: »
    Complaint handler advised other party what disciplinary would entail.

    The point still stands. How would they/you know the outcome without an investigation?

    Scenario 1: employees computer system gives wrong address for sending documents.
    Scenario 2:employee with a history of lax work simply didnt bother checking what they put in the envelope vs address file.

    Do you see both being covered by the same outcome?
  • pmlindyloo
    pmlindyloo Posts: 13,048
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    FBaby wrote: »
    Yes they should but not by reinstating benefits they are not entitled to and after reviewing the evidence of the distress that has been caused as a result.

    And no, the other party shouldn't be compensated especially when they used this breach to cause trouble when they could have just returned the letter and reported the breach.

    I have been thinking about this.

    I would be extremely surprised if the fact that the two parties involved were 'returned to the benefits they were on' is a bribe on the part of the DWP.

    I am wondering if, as previously mentioned, they are using the guidelines for financial redress (see previous link)

    If the 'bundle' from the tribunal contained someone else's medical evidence then it would be a reasonable assumption that this medical evidence was used during the assessment. Also, it may be reasonable to assume that medical evidence was 'missing' for the second claimant.

    If this was the case then both assessments would be flawed.

    Because of the maladministration brought to light then the guidelines infer that both parties should be reinstated to the position they were in before the maladministration took place - presumably both were in the support group - so that they would not suffer any financial loss due to the maladministration (hope you're still with me!)

    Anyway, just my thoughts.

    Would be interesting if the OP could confirm that both claimants were in the support group before.

    Also, when the 'bundle' from the tribunal arrived for the second claimant did it contain all the correct medical evidence? (i.e that sent to the first claimant by mistake)

    As I said, just my thoughts.
  • Ladidi
    Ladidi Posts: 34 Forumite
    pmlindyloo wrote: »
    I have been thinking about this.

    I would be extremely surprised if the fact that the two parties involved were 'returned to the benefits they were on' is a bribe on the part of the DWP.

    I am wondering if, as previously mentioned, they are using the guidelines for financial redress (see previous link)

    If the 'bundle' from the tribunal contained someone else's medical evidence then it would be a reasonable assumption that this medical evidence was used during the assessment. Also, it may be reasonable to assume that medical evidence was 'missing' for the second claimant.

    If this was the case then both assessments would be flawed.

    Because of the maladministration brought to light then the guidelines infer that both parties should be reinstated to the position they were in before the maladministration took place - presumably both were in the support group - so that they would not suffer any financial loss due to the maladministration (hope you're still with me!)

    Anyway, just my thoughts.

    Would be interesting if the OP could confirm that both claimants were in the support group before.

    Also, when the 'bundle' from the tribunal arrived for the second claimant did it contain all the correct medical evidence? (i.e that sent to the first claimant by mistake)

    As I said, just my thoughts.

    The other party who received the bundle to deal with their appeal received the other persons medical information into their records.

    A statement was made to DWP via telephone call. This information was carried over from claimant A to Claimant B records. This information which did no relate to them one bit was used in their decisions making and MR for their benefits claim. No points were awarded for this information being included into their records. Question was asked in letter to them about this new information as to where it wasnt mentioned in ESA50 and at assessment. (information didnt belong to them is why) Yet all info was held under their name and NINO. Bearing in mind Claimant B is a woman and Claimant A a man. In the write of of the said medical information they named Claimant A in the decision making reasons and yet the letter and NINO used was going to claimant B.

    So the !!!! up, including medical information of Claimant A into claimant B records and disclosing claimant A personal and private information into claimant B records detailing medical/disabilities/issues in writing and included into their benefits claim.

    Yes both were in support group before benefits denied on reassessment and MR stage.

    I looked at the link you supplied. Thank you for this :)
    I'm under impression from the way I read it they could be using this too. I figured they could using the "Redress"
  • sbk1
    sbk1 Posts: 26 Forumite
    I realise this thread has died but on reading it noticed a few things in relation to the replies.

    There is an attempt to trivialise the data breach - oh what harm did it do.
    Then there is the emotional blackmail - oh the poor employees will be dismissed.
    Then the costs - oh its ultimately the taxpayer who'll pay.


    I see this sort of reasoning among the uneducated, ignorant yet pompous people all the time.


    The fact is laws apply to such breaches. As a organisation with resources they have a legal obligation to comply.


    If the shoe had been on the other foot as is in the news all the time. The DWP doesn't care how many people are severely damaged and even die as a result of its often wrong actions.


    In this case they are trying to bargain their way out. Because they know they've messed up.

    Use the full weight of the law against them.
  • Alice_Holt
    Alice_Holt Posts: 5,857
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    How to win friends and influence people...
    sbk1 wrote: »
    ...I see this sort of reasoning among the uneducated, ignorant yet pompous people all the time...

    Pointless dredging up a dead thread, and IMO bad form to attack forumites (as opposed to calmly setting out a reasoned argument to counter the points made).
    I rather think such personal insults reflect more on the insulter than the insultee.
    Alice Holt Forest situated some 4 miles south of Farnham forms the most northerly gateway to the South Downs National Park.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 5,186
    Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    Ladidi wrote: »
    It is of the understanding that was stated by the complaint handler whose words were " they will face a disciplinary which will involve them to under take more training and noted in their work records"

    I take that to meam a written warning and given more training in data security procedures

    They told you this merely to placate you, any internal investigation and possible disciplinarian outcome is absolutely none of your concern and quite rightly so. DPA works both ways.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 341.8K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 233.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 606.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.5K Life & Family
  • 246.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards