Petition re MAPS funded debt advice - UPDATE

fatbelly

When you hear from government that funding is being increased please bear in mind the following:

There are 10 contracts proposed, split as follows:

A. 3 Regional debt advice services (North, Midlands and South)

B. 3 National remote debt advice hubs

C. 1 Business debt hub

D. 3 Debt Relief Order hubs

The proposed total funding sum of £79 million per annum will be split with £59 million going to lots B, C and D.  

Lot A has therefore been allocated £20 million, which represents a reduction in funding for regional areas of around 50% to 60%.

Regional debt advisers have already been told of the likely job losses and, given how onerous it already is to work under a MAPS contract, are already leaving in droves. My office has now lost two thirds of the advisers that they had at the start of the year. They will not be replaced.

Any existing provision is already being told to wind down and the new arrangements will not go live till July 2022 so a huge gap is now developing with no interim arrangements/funding.

We are getting a lot of support from MPs (mostly Labour, one Green) and will be having a formal meeting soon. We are asking MAPS to:

• pause the recommissioning to consult properly 
• extend the existing contracts by 12 months to allow this
• scrap the appalling DAPA (peer review) system 

MissFlossy222

fatbelly said:

"Sadly, MAPS debt advisors are subject to a draconian audit regime which focuses on detriment, where judgements are inconsistent, the requirements and goalposts constantly move and outcomes for clients are not measured at all.  Simultaneously the contract imposes targets - the number of clients seem.  The two are Inconsistent.  Advisers have to see a minimum number of clients but, in order to meet audit requirements, have to record and confirm advice in a prescribed and massively time-consuming way.  With increasingly complex cases, advisors dealing regularly with safeguarding issues, the requirement to complete a minimum number of hours of training, admin, organisational meetings, supporting other members of staff and file reviews there are simply not enough hours in the week to deliver both quality and quantity.  And that is before any case work. 

 

The MAPS website describes themselves as “An arm's length body”.  Absolutely.  It is remote.  It cannot be held directly accountable for the impact of the contract on the health and wellbeing of those who are employed by contractors to deliver it.  But it could agree to listen and act upon the findings of the IMA’s recent research into advisor workload and wellbeing which was damning.  It could consider alternative ways of measuring success such as outcomes or levels of engagement.  It could trust that advisors will use the hours they are paid for constructively and drop the target requirement completely.  It could respect the professionalism and expertise of debt advisors by allowing them to present information to clients in a meaningful and accessible way tailored to ability and need rather than imposing a blanket requirement.  It could take a long hard look at the time it actually takes to properly support clients where serious mental health issues, complex and multiple debts, threatened or actual homelessness, domestic abuse and suicidal ideation are now routine.  It could take a leaf out of its own book in terms of “Actual and potential detriment” and apply this to the health and wellbeing of debt advisors.  It could consider why staff are having to be offered access to counselling services and stress management courses and look at tackling the causes rather than sticking plasters over the wounds.

 

I would urge any organisation currently operating a MAPS contract to consider their statutory duty of care to those employees who are being expected to deliver it. Whilst there will be clear financial implications, I would strongly encourage any organisation considering tending for a Maps contract to look carefully at whether it is something that can realistically be delivered. 

 

Debt advisors struggling under MAPS contracts must speak to their employers, put their concerns in writing if necessary, and join a union.  They should work only the hours they are paid for and say when they have reached client capacity.  if the job can't be done to the expected standard within contractual hours then it is the contract that needs to change. 

 

The physical and emotional impacts of stress, and of supporting vulnerable people in traumatic situations, cannot be underestimated.  I recognise that, despite the incredible support from my employer, the contract was beginning to impact on my health and home life.  Debt advisors are fully trained, extremely knowledgeable people who have valuable transferable skills; they are capable of securing alternative employment and that is exactly what I've done.  The relief is immense and whilst I'm earning slightly less I am happy and well."

 

From IMA Quarterly Account Summer 2021 page 31

I was a MAPS debt advisor until last year. The pressure of meeting the audit requirements,  hitting the targets, and dealing with very vulnerable clients just got too much for me.
I was working evenings and weekends trying to keep on top of the workload but the constant anxiety that I wasn't doing the best for my clients meant I had too give up. 

We need face to face advice for those vulnerable clients that can't cope with the phones but MAPS wants a one size fits all model that doesn't really allow for these clients who need additional support.

kendall17

Thanks for raising this @fatbelly. 

As a MaPS funded Debt Adviser it is likely that I will be made redundant come March, especially working at a small independent advice agency.

At a briefing today with MPs some shocking figures were presented in the service provision in areas around England.

Leeds is likely to lose around 50% of it's F2F debt advisors, Cornwall may lose 100% and the nearest service could be a 2 hour train ride away.

There is certainly scope for digital advice, but this is not what we need as we reach the crest of the debt tsunami. 

fatbelly

I'm in the same place as you, @kendall17 - have been told I will be in a redundancy process from 1 Jan.

We've known for some time that MAS was incompetent* and changing to MAPS hasn't improved them.

What a shambles!

*IIRC that was the finding of a select committee and a government inquiry and was announced by George Osborne in a Budget speech!

RAS

Signed. Do they really think people can discuss their debt problems if they have to make the initial contact via a library? Assuming they can find a library.

fatbelly

Thanks @RAS. The Guardian picked up on this today

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2021/nov/08/debt-advice-shake-up-in-england-could-reduce-face-to-face-help

RAS

fatbelly

I managed a unit some years ago that recruited people returning to work. One day one of the staff was in such a state that they were achieving nothing. A conversation in the manager's office elicited an explanation. Our worker was the only official earner, the family wanted them to take out a loan to cover a debt accrued by another family member and the bank has refused. The employee was torn between dealing with the distress felt by their family at their failure to secure the loan and their own distress at the realisation that the debt they were servicing was unsustainable according to the bank employee they met.

It turned out that the employee was paying for a car used primarily by another family member to facilitate their cash in hand work. The insurance etc also came from the employee's account although the other party was supposed to pay half. The employee also paid for a loan taken out at the family's instigation to pay off their sister's debt when the sister's husband left because he'd paid off her debts several times previously and she'd done it again. And several other smaller debts accrued at the behest of family members.

With support from a debt advice service and work, the employee eventually understood that the bank staff had done them a favour. 

Not long after staff were offered a few hours of paid overtime for a couple of weeks. The staff member was in a state again on Monday morning; having mentioned this at home, their family had worked out how much extra they might earn for those weeks and planned to take out long-term credit which assumed their income was permanently increased.

It took a phone call to HR to "withdraw" the offer of paid overtime, and the employee's pay slips supported this for a while. When we eventually fed the overtime into the system, the employee's payslip "went missing". A similar tactic was used when they got back-pay after a pay dispute was settled.

There are few people now who'd get that level of support now. They'd now be unlikely to be able to keep their pay or bank statements private because they'd be on-line, and neither webchat or email support would be safe. The employee's other problems meant that phone calls required them to authorise someone to speak for them, which would make them more vulnerable now that phone banking is the norm.

This might seem extreme but there are and will be people who are at similar risk of coercion even if they do not view it that way. And those seeking to escape would be at increased risk. Without face to face support, this person would not have been able to reduce their debt or limit their family's expectations.

fatbelly

Well done Caroline Lucas

https://www.carolinelucas.com/caroline/parliament/letter/letter-to-the-minister-for-pensions-and-financial-inclusion-on-proposals

and at least Hilary Benn is asking questions

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2021-11-05/70229#

fatbelly

The Treasury are now asking pertinent questions over this debacle

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/7840/documents/81564/default/

capuchin

fatbelly said:

The Treasury are now asking pertinent questions over this debacle

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/7840/documents/81564/default/

That letter is a hand grenade. Not a chance it's originated from a single MP/Committee.