Terms & Conditions

[Accura]

have any sites actually been able to measure the savings / benefits of using DNR mail?

do any sites use it for mail other than cheques?

[Anonymous]

Nottingham City use DNR for all benefit notifications etc

[Accura]

do you then treat any DNR returns as priority?

have you been able to measure the costs of 100% DNR against any o/p savings? or is it simply for a best practice measure?

[Anonymous]

Pass…. I dont actually work there, I just know that they do use the DNR envelopes. It may be worth your while contacting them directly. Am sure the would be willing to share any data.

Sorry cant give you any names so would suggest you haggle your way through their switchboard unless there are any representatives out there willing to make themselves known to you…

Good luck

[jmembery]

We use DNR for everything.
Total waste of cash if you ask me.
The only things that get returned are letters saying, “your benefit has been stopped as you have moved”.

We have never found a single fraud from DNR

[Accura]

that’s useful and to the point! 😀

have you had a detailed look at it or is it just the feedback from the fraud team?

I take it you still use DNR despite the lack of results?

[Anonymous]

It could work and be effective if;

1. all returned mail is investigated soon after it is returned.

2. returned mail is “sifted” to sort lower priority stuff (we suspended your claim because you moved and this is the only address we have) from higher priority stuff (you are entitled to hb but it is returned with a stern note saying that nobody of that name has ever lived at this address/never heard of them etc.). Just as all investigations are scored/rated?

3. everybody is aware of the scheme and how it should work.

4. everybody is told why it has been implemented and associate costs.

5. any requests for “care of” or admin addresses are suitably investigated and reviewed regularly.

There is no point in starting the scheme if you do not follow the premise of investigating the returns; if you cannot do this efficiently or promptly it amounts to a waste of resource.

At this time of year there is a lot of mail going out, you can expect an increase in returned mail.

Many people have Hb paid into bank accounts etc. there are no benefit periods; the new years award letter may be the only chance for returned mail, I would say these would warrant investigation if the letters are returned.

Most of the items of returned mail are, of course, not Hb cheques, but if you do not examine it timeously there is little point in looking at it at all.

If the investigations do not payoff it is not good value for money.

[jmembery]

Hi Accura
We did a “review” of the DNR scheme here last year, including an analysis of the returns and the reason for them.

Neither the Benefits team nor the fraud team find it very useful. However, it used to be part of the security BVPI and is still part of the HB/CTB Security Manual. We therefore felt that we couldn’t be seen to be becoming less vigilant in the prevention of fraud by scrapping it.

Jeff

[Anonymous]

In the past year, we’ve had [b:1479a1b658]one [/b:1479a1b658]investigation from the DNR returns. It proved to be successful and we got an AdPen out of it 😀

[Anonymous]

Does that justify all the additional cost of running a DNR scheme?

[simonh]

I discussed our DNR scheme recently with our fraud team and they admitted that it hadn’t led to a single referral to them. Most of the items returned are due to officers sending letters out to the wrong (old) address.

[Anonymous]

Possibly not – but whilst it’s a requirement for Performance Standards, I can’t see us changing.

[Anonymous]

I’m not criticising you, ANP, or any other authority. It’s just that, from what’s been posted here, DNR appears to be a very expensive way of detecting a very small amount of fraud. There must be better ways to use the resources involved.

[Accura]

the responses I’ve had from sites outside this forum is that the actual cases from DNR are minimal but that it acts as a deterrent and this is not a measurable factor.

[Anonymous]

Andy – you may be right, but what cannot be quantified is how much fraud is prevented by the fact that it is now well known that DNR exists. Before the DNR days, it was not uncommon to find fraudulent claimants that used the Royal Mail’s redirection scheme to perpetrate their crime. By running the scheme we are rewarded by getting the appropriate ticks in boxes showing that we take measures to prevent fraud, not just detect it.

[Author]

Posts