If There’s Criteria How Does This Happen?

Margaret_Skinner

calcotti wrote: »

Absolutely but they do of course fall into different budgets. The DWP employ and train Decision Makers whereas the Ministry of Justice funds the tribunal service. In the past tribunal judges have suggested that the DWP should be charged by the MoJ because of the poor quality of DWP decision making and the poor quality of evidence they provide, which it has been suggested would be unacceptable in any other court.

It would undoubtedly be cheaper overall if the DWP were better at making the initial decisions and/or correcting errors at MR stage - quite apart from the fact it would reduce stress caused to claimants.

Ah ok yes I hadn’t thought of that - makes sense. And yes completely agree about the reduction of stress - they end up MAKING people ill

Margaret_Skinner

TELLIT01 wrote: »

When I was working at DWP, far from increasing the number of Decision Makers, many were moved to other roles. Often it was those with most experience who were moved too. Not only did that obviously increase the workload on those remaining, but as they were predominantly less experienced they would be far more likely simply to accept the information from the assessor in order to hit their own throughput targets.
I can't speak for other departments, but my experience within DWP was that hitting targets wasn't simply the most important thing, it was the only thing that was measured and given any importance.
The section I worked on had the target for claims processed almost doubled in the time I was there. When I said it was not possible to do all the necessary checking to ensure correct payment in the time allowed, I was told accuracy wasn't our problem as another section would have to correct any errors.

God that’s awful although it explains a lot. What a dreadful system! Must have been horrible to work in those conditions.

TELLIT01

Margaret_Skinner wrote: »

God that’s awful although it explains a lot. What a dreadful system! Must have been horrible to work in those conditions.

It was horrible. Worst job I ever had. Just thankful that I am now retired. Most staff on my grade hated the way we had to do the job, but if you tried to do the job as it should be done i.e. thoroughly and accurately you would end up on a Performance Improvement Plan because you weren't clearing the required number of claims per day. Rock and a hard place comes to mind.

Alice_Holt

TELLIT01 wrote: »

It was horrible. Worst job I ever had. Just thankful that I am now retired. Most staff on my grade hated the way we had to do the job, but if you tried to do the job as it should be done i.e. thoroughly and accurately you would end up on a Performance Improvement Plan because you weren't clearing the required number of claims per day. Rock and a hard place comes to mind.

That must have been awful.
What a horrible working culture if when you try to do the job thoroughly (and, I guess, you would be working with some vulnerable customers) you end up on an Improvement Plan.

Many years ago at a training course I met an ex DWP decision maker who had jumped ship and was now employed by his local CAB. Although the pay was less, I remember him saying what a relief it was to be working in a culture where the whole emphasis was on getting the best for the client.

When I first volunteered with my CAB, I recall that the DWP call-handlers could be very helpful. Quite often a problem could be resolved on the phone.
Now the call-handlers seem must less knowledgeable and experienced, and you can almost sense their desperation to end the call asap. Of course, this means the client's problem is then eventually passed on to other DWP employee (Generally via a letter, compliant, or MR) and at the end of a long wait may not even get resolved by the DWP before it advances to tribunal.

I have even had a DWP minister responding to his constituent by forwarding her a inaccurate and wholly incorrect letter from a DWP complaints manager. "I'm sorry this is not the news you wanted to hear, but....." writes the MP - about a letter which upholds a clear breach of UC regulations by DWP staff. Difficulty is that it will take many months to get the incorrect decision overturned at tribunal.
When senior DWP staff are giving their own ministers (as MP to their customer) incorrect information about benefit entitlement I really do despair at the institutionalised incompetence of the Department.

Margaret_Skinner

TELLIT01 wrote: »

It was horrible. Worst job I ever had. Just thankful that I am now retired. Most staff on my grade hated the way we had to do the job, but if you tried to do the job as it should be done i.e. thoroughly and accurately you would end up on a Performance Improvement Plan because you weren't clearing the required number of claims per day. Rock and a hard place comes to mind.

Very apt!:o

sportsarb

TELLIT01 wrote: »

It was horrible. Worst job I ever had. Just thankful that I am now retired. Most staff on my grade hated the way we had to do the job, but if you tried to do the job as it should be done i.e. thoroughly and accurately you would end up on a Performance Improvement Plan because you weren't clearing the required number of claims per day. Rock and a hard place comes to mind.

I used to work for a 'sister' organisation to the DWP. Department for Social Development, which then became Department for Communities, but had the same remit on benefits as DWP did.

We used all the same systems as DWP, to the point that for benefits where scripts launched on answering a call, it prompted us to thank people for calling the DWP rather than our actual department.

The one major difference between DWP and our department was that we had high level accuracy targets, as well as processing targets, and we were incentivised to make sure we were paying the right amount of money. We processed a claim (Or a change) and a certain % of these would then be passed to an accuracy team, the accuracy team had a standards assurance unit that checked their work, the standards assurance unit had a departmental auditor that checked their work and there was then another level above that.

It was a source of some annoyance, but also reassurance about our systems, when we were often told about how things operated in DWP. We were told that claims and changes were pretty much accepted on the say so of what was on the claim form and to get it paid quickly rather than get it paid right. Whereas we had to investigate the claim, including checking what had happened on previous claims (Including on other benefits) to make sure that what was declared on the current claim was consistent with previous declarations.

I'm a competitive person, I don't like being told that I am wrong, and when I got a piece of work back that I had processed incorrectly I made sure that I never made that error again. Where I thought I was right, I would check the high level guidance, and try and prove the checker wrong because I wanted my accuracy level to be correct. I took pride in how well I ended up doing with my accuracy levels.

It always struck me as just bad that DWP didn't adopt the same approach but for a department the size of DWP it would have meant a lot more staff to do it properly.

TELLIT01

sportsarb, when I started there was an accuracy team which was actually very helpful because ESA was a new benefit and many of us working on ESA were also new to benefit processing. They weren't trying to catch us out, just make sure the correct benefit amount was being paid. That checking was scrapped at the same time as the number of claims we were expected to process increased. Entirely coincidental of course.

Margaret_Skinner

sportsarb wrote: »

I used to work for a 'sister' organisation to the DWP. Department for Social Development, which then became Department for Communities, but had the same remit on benefits as DWP did.

We used all the same systems as DWP, to the point that for benefits where scripts launched on answering a call, it prompted us to thank people for calling the DWP rather than our actual department.

The one major difference between DWP and our department was that we had high level accuracy targets, as well as processing targets, and we were incentivised to make sure we were paying the right amount of money. We processed a claim (Or a change) and a certain % of these would then be passed to an accuracy team, the accuracy team had a standards assurance unit that checked their work, the standards assurance unit had a departmental auditor that checked their work and there was then another level above that.

It was a source of some annoyance, but also reassurance about our systems, when we were often told about how things operated in DWP. We were told that claims and changes were pretty much accepted on the say so of what was on the claim form and to get it paid quickly rather than get it paid right. Whereas we had to investigate the claim, including checking what had happened on previous claims (Including on other benefits) to make sure that what was declared on the current claim was consistent with previous declarations.

I'm a competitive person, I don't like being told that I am wrong, and when I got a piece of work back that I had processed incorrectly I made sure that I never made that error again. Where I thought I was right, I would check the high level guidance, and try and prove the checker wrong because I wanted my accuracy level to be correct. I took pride in how well I ended up doing with my accuracy levels.

It always struck me as just bad that DWP didn't adopt the same approach but for a department the size of DWP it would have meant a lot more staff to do it properly.

That sounds a far more satisfying system and one which would benefit the claimant as well. I realise the DWP would have needed more staff to implement it but can’t help thinking they end wasting so much money getting it wrong because people end up challenging the incorrect decisions so then there's the cost of going to Tribunal and all that that incurs.

Also if we take my case as an example - if I didn’t have savings of my own to tide me over when I became ill, I may not have been able to pay my mortgage, could have lost my house, would have been homeless, ended up in a council flat - which the DWP would have had to pay me Housing Benefit for - and then would have definitely been more ill so may have ended up with more PIP - so they could have been shelling out a lot more than the measly amount they were contesting! Just makes no sense.

And of course there’s a far greater cost to the person making the claim in terms of illness and stress.

Robbie64

What amount of training do new staff get these days? I joined what was then the DHSS in October 1985 and my training in Supplementary Benefit didn't end until the end of January 1986. As I was an Adjudication Officer (basically the then equivalent of a Decision Maker) I then had a further 4 weeks training in decision making. My first job was as a Visiting Officer so there was another lot of training there too. By the time I'd finished my training I knew how to work out a benefit claim without the need to consult the Adjudication Officers Guide/ And it was all done with paper (an A14 form I think it was), pen and calculator.


When I phone the DWP these days about my ESA it is hit and miss who I get. Sometimes the person is very knowledgeable but there have been times when I've spoken to someone who could be the cleaner for all they know. Maybe training in my day was more intense as you were expected to know everything to assess a claim by pen and paper. Maybe the computer does all the thinking these days. And when I eventually moved to become a supervisor on a benefit section - by this point Income Support had replaced SuppBen - I made sure the knowledge of my staff was up to scratch too. I didn't like it if any of my staff gave wrong information to claimants. Accuracy was always most important even though as a London office we were snowed under with work and each section had to answer calls too, there was no call centres back then. It was hectic but I rarely had to refer a case back to any of my staff to correct an error.

WhenIam64

Maybe the computer does all the thinking these days

You'll find that is the case in many areas, not just the DWP. It has advantages in that computers are less prone to errors. [It's the coders that make the mistakes]

The major disadvantage is that politicians think they can make life complex as "the computer does all the thinking these days."

Coming back to the OP's question, in any legal process i.e. a Tribunal, it is always 50/50 going into one. The DM may have thought it was so close to the line that he/she used discretion. It is the same in other places where a legal challenge can be made and not only the DWP.

One bit of advice given to me early on was never let a judge or tribunal make the decision for you. You may not like the outcome. Perhaps this third DM has been given the same advice.