Correct use of “Claim Date”

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #38371
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Just wondering if any other LAs have had problems with staff struggling to use the “Claim Date” field correctly?

    To the best of my knowledge, the Receipt Date should be input as the date the LA received the claim form, and the Claim Date field should only be used if you need to override the Receipt Date (For example, a claimant notified us of their intention to claim, and then actually claimed within a month, we would treat the claim as being made on the earlier date). In most cases, the claim will default to a start date of the Monday following the Claim Date.

    Our main problem is with staff not using the Claim Date at all, but manually overtyping the Start Date instead. This then leads to an incorrect recording as backdating.

    Has anyone else come across this problem and, if so, how did you tackle it?

    Any advice would be appreciated!

    Peter

    #108032
    jrou
    Participant

    We have our permission set up that only senior members of staff can authorise backdated a period, ensuring the backdate is genuine. Therefore if a processing officer tries to fiddle the dates, it will ask for authorisers password to accept.

    Job Role priviledge is BACK_ENT

    Jenn 🙂

    #108033
    Andreas
    Participant

    Like you we have had problems with this field… the end result is that our staff always insert a ‘Claim Date’ even if that date is the ‘Receipt Date’ (as an indication that staff have at least considered whether or not an earlier ‘Claim Date’ applies).

    Like Jenn we also had authorisation permissions set for backdates… but ‘management’ decided to give universal access to all staff as it speeded things up J)

    #108115
    Anonymous
    Guest

    The age old problem of Claim Dates. Again we have major issues with claim dates and first week indicators not being inserted. Its great fun ( excuse the sarcasm ) when we come to doing subsidy checking and there are thousands of non genuine backdates.

    We have trained people, we have used the security authorisation, we have then taken the authorisation away to speed up the processing……. Still no better.

    Some might say assessors already have a million and one things to think about before even considering what is going on in the background of the system.

    I do like Andreas idea of inserting a claim date on every case- at least it means that they have had to think about it. Does anyone know if the parameters can be adjusted to make it a mandatory field?

    Thanks

    #108117
    Andreas
    Participant

    As much as I would like to take credit, the move to ensuring a claim date was always inserted was actually due to ‘quality assurance’ work… and (in my opinion) rather than being intended as a good idea was aimed at identifying repeat ‘offenders’. However, it has had the desired result (mostly!) so can be considered a success.

    [Edited to add: PS – we just got everyone to fill it all the time rather than set it up as a mandatory field via parameters… doesn’t mean it can’t be done though but that wasn’t our approach.]

    As for the 1st Week Indicator… S)

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.