Terms & Conditions

[Anonymous]

Am I wrong in thinking we’ll need to start our new CTB claims on full liability, wait a month then award SPDs ?

Merry Pagan festival, claimants.

[Anonymous]

If you don’t verify anything to start with you can then review the claim later and reach your target for reductions easily.

What a mess! What [i:45163e67e4]are [/i:45163e67e4]they thinking? Shall I get rid of all my (fairly recently recruited) visiting officers. The words “p**s up” and “brewery” come to mind

[Anonymous]

I haven’t received it yet – what does it say?

[Anonymous]

You have a target for benefit reductions – any type of reduction counts towards your target: liability changes; predictive changes; changes reported by the claimant; changes notified by DWP … oh, and changes discovered as a result of interventions/visits but that activity is [i:627c3fab72]so [/i:627c3fab72]last year !

[shabir_elahi]

Darkside – I don’t think your system will work – see the question in A20/2006 reproduced below:

We will ignore any monthly extract which contains an unusually large number of
benefit reductions, and replace it with the average of your LA’s monthly reductions
over the other 11 months of the year.

[david kearney]

it would actually, as you would be doing the same thing every month. Quite creative that darkside, even we hadn’t thought of that and we’d considered a few.

I should obviously point out that we will not be indulging in such activities (our targets easily achievable) but it is the most abusable of PI’s. Good to see the end of the intervention target mind

[Anonymous]

Get ready for lots of calls from those employment agencies offering unwanted VO’s……

But seriously, it is open to abuse, but it’s been changed because the last measures were abused, so if that happens, it will only be changed again and again and again.

I just want things to stay the same for long enough to have a fixed staffing structure instead of having to keep staff on short term contracts.

[JamesPickering]

I heeard someone in the office say, why bother uprating by the correct percentage amount? Do it by a lesser percentage and then all the claims will be wrong and when corrected will result in a reduction….

Don’t know how people think of these things.

[Anonymous]

Must admit that that one had flashed accross my mind, James! 😳
But surely you would do it by a (slightly) greater percentage if you wanted to subsequently reduce? (Obviouly should have been a maths teacher!) 😉

Can’t work out whether that’s creative, devious or both, though!! 8)

[Author]

Posts