Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
  • #22305
    david kearney

    Morning all

    Has anybody produced any notes for their staff on interpreting the information held on CIS? (I know we’ve got the DWP training stuff but its not very helpful) If so i would be awfully grateful if i could have a look
    D K (without the spaces)



    Could I have a copy please. The screens are alittle confusing and sometimes it has different information when we cross check it with the RAT!!! Thanks

    david kearney

    i didnt receive anything i’m afraid, if you haven’t already seen it, there is some clarification in circular G6.



    I’ve just gone through the e-learning package as we are due to go live in mid-July, and it doesn’t seem to tell us how to do anything (unless we all take up work for CSA in tracing absent parents).

    With that in mind, can anyone who has been live for a while give an indication of how long it took for their assessors to feel comfortable actually using the new system?



    We were one of the pilot sites for this project and have been using it now since the end of 2005.
    As with information held on any database, it needs interpreting, but generally the info is in pretty user friendly form.
    So, ChrisB, in answer to your question –
    * we still have a few problems working out what the DWP information says, but these are only a few
    * all our assessment, fraud and processing officers use it to look up info to assess – all of them have found it easy to use and extract the information
    * it took them one or two lookups to feel comfortable after the training
    * common held opinion is that it is MUCH better than the old RAT
    * it honestly is very simple, and I feel that the DWP package makes it far too complicated. Emphasise the simplicity, and don’t over complicate things with lengthy procedures 😕

    Hope this helps, but if you have any further questions send me a p.m. 8)

    Kevin D

    CIS has an advantage over RATs to the extent of the amount of info that is available. However, based on 3 examples in the past two weeks, I’d be very cautious about the accuracy.

    1) JSA: CIS indicated this was income-based. ETD suggested contribution-based. JC+ confirmed ETD was correct (as did clmt’s subsequestly provided notification letter).

    2) Pension Credit: CIS failed to identify ANY pension credit for either the clmt or partner (this was not a recent claim). Clmt had notifs. Penion Service confirmed PC in payment.

    3) IS: CIS failed to identify an end date – could have led to a major o/p.

    All the above are proper working examples. So, a bit of caution is needed – perhaps CIS should be used as [u:2a27352d75]a[/u:2a27352d75] tool, not necessarily [u:2a27352d75]the[/u:2a27352d75] tool.



    I’m curious about CIS in relation to CMS

    following a liaison meeting with our JCP, we have been advised that they do not have access to the live benefits system, so if a member of the public comes in to ask for verification of benefit they have to log a request and send it to the regional processing centre in Cornwall with a 7 day turn round.

    We are unable to get through to the assessment centre by email, fax or phone so if the CIS does not hold records we have to tell the customer to contact JCP as we can’t do it directly?!


    I understand what you are saying about the accuracy of some of the stuff on CIS. We too have had problems with the accuracy of the information from time to time.
    Any database is after all only as good as the people inputting to it.
    However, you can only take what you see on the system, and if there is no evidence to the contrary, it has to be the main tool, whether we like it or not.
    I admit that if you do (have evidence to the contrary), then it becomes [/u]a[u:fce8385b0e] tool rather than the tool.[/u:fce8385b0e]

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.