DWP Culture of Contempt?

Alice_Holt

Did anyone see this in the papers?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/benefits/2019/mar/22/all

DWP decision maker writing in the PIP appeal evidence bundle that "“In this lying !!!!!es [sic] case she is receiving the mid-rate carers [sic] allowance component for providing day time supervision to another disabled person. The tribunal may wish to explore this further,”

https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/14271?fbclid=IwAR3KzY0Yp0MCqxnqiLX7tb4ytozDoUZOqHsxuLsCz-eblXKgetBjB-iiGJA

huckster

Someone looking for a new job, I would think !

TELLIT01

huckster wrote: »

Someone looking for a new job, I would think !

Hopefully, and rightly so. If the DM has evidence that it is a fraudulent claim they should pass it on to the relevant section. Evidence or not, that has to be the most stupid thing I have ever heard of being put in writing.

huckster

TELLIT01 wrote: »

Hopefully, and rightly so. If the DM has evidence that it is a fraudulent claim they should pass it on to the relevant section. Evidence or not, that has to be the most stupid thing I have ever heard of being put in writing.

DWP have taken on a lot of new staff to review PIP decisions and there may be a lack of experience.

Pretty stupid to even write this as a joke, without intending it to go out.

Or this never happened and has been made up by someone. Not suggesting those reporting this have done so, but have previously seen examples of documents being altered by someone who is looking to attack an organisation. I am accepting this at face value, but I have done so previously and then felt silly for taking what I have read as being totally accurate.

TELLIT01

huckster wrote: »

I am accepting this at face value, but I have done so previously and then felt silly for taking what I have read as being totally accurate.

As am I. Unless I see a post which is obviously a wind up, I respond purely to what has been posted and make no assumption about the OP's motives.

dreamylittledream

The language is either an office prank or short hand intended to be removed (rather foolish if the latter but who knows).

The actual implication of the submission however would be unaltered if you removed the insulting language and replaced it with the Appellant's name given its suggesting inherent incompatibility between an award of Carers and an award of PIP to the same person, a position which is not necessarily supported in legislation

ohreally

Doesn't this have the appearance of being written by a third party, take a 5 min comfort break and some joker inserts their own little addition.

Do folks really believe a DM would leave themselves open?

sportsarb

It’s definitely out of step with anything I have ever seen from members of staff of any level. At times there’s understandable and justifiable outbursts in the heat of the moment but nothing like this.

Regardless of whether it was a prank or not, the PC used to do it can be tracked back to a member of staff, and they still remain liable for what’s done on their PC.

Staff are issued with cards for a reason and computer security is that reason.

dreamylittledream

sportsarb wrote: »

It’s definitely out of step with anything I have ever seen from members of staff of any level. At times there’s understandable and justifiable outbursts in the heat of the moment but nothing like this.

Regardless of whether it was a prank or not, the PC used to do it can be tracked back to a member of staff, and they still remain liable for what’s done on their PC.

Staff are issued with cards for a reason and computer security is that reason.

This is very true but everyone at some point has left their PID in the computer absent mindedly

sportsarb

dreamylittledream wrote: »

This is very true but everyone at some point has left their PID in the computer absent mindedly

Absolutely, I know I did, but if someone had done something on my computer while I was away then only I could be blamed unless there were witnesses. Even then, they would still have been witnesses to someone messing about and me breaching security.

TELLIT01

dreamylittledream wrote: »

This is very true but everyone at some point has left their PID in the computer absent mindedly

True. I know I did on many occasions. That doesn't alter the fact that the 'owner' of the PID is responsible for it, and for anything input on a computer using it. Leaving the PID unattended is a potential disciplinary offence, although implementing that would be a nightmare as managers would be doing nothing other than disciplinaries