Terms & Conditions

[Kevin D]

Just to be clear, the following is a rant against the government with a small “g”. The political colour is irrelevant.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/housingbenefit/news/newsletter/2006/Issue59-nov2006.pdf

Paul Howarth:

[quote:c5b2167061]I am keen that we move towards a position where we join up services between LAs, DWP and HMRC so that only one contact is needed by the customer – the information is then passed elsewhere automatically.[/quote:c5b2167061]

Sooooo original (er, am I sure?). And brilliant. Apart from (in no particular order):

1) The rules for claiming different benefits are significantly different.

2) Neither HMRC, nor the DWP, nor the majority of LA benefit sections are resourced anything like adequately.

3) Computer systems, so reliable thus far, will of course be able handle this. But only in your wildest and most unlikely dreams.

4) How on earth is any centralised contact centre expected to know enough to [u:c5b2167061][b:c5b2167061]properly[/b:c5b2167061][/u:c5b2167061] advise clmts? Sorry. Customers. The DWP, HMRC and LAs all have enough difficulty in trying to unscramble the rules for the benefits they currently administer in their own sphere, let alone understand the nuances of benefits administered by other organisations. So how on earth a non-specialised central contact centre can offer accurate info is beyond me. Perhaps no one cares anymore.

5) The harsh bottom line reality is that communication and cooperation between LAs, DWP & HMRC is, how shall I put it? Patchy. At best.

6) Provisions intended for implementation are consistently undermined by wholly inadequate, or abysmally drafted, legislation. Or, on occasion, non-existent legislation (e.g. see threads & CDs ad nauseum on the status of, for example, the now defunct VF).

Yet again, a government simply fails to show any grasp of grass roots reality.

Prediction: It won’t work. So, it will probably go ahead. Ok, it’s not exactly a difficult prediction……

Message to Mr Howarth: The concept is laudable. The practicality and administrative reality appear to be utterly beyond your comprehension.

Rant (part 1) over.

[Anonymous]

How can you be so cynical when we have the marvellous example of how well CMS is working? JC+ sending all info through to HB with no delays, excellent customer service on the phones, no lost or missing evidence,no problems at all. The government obviously has its ear well to the ground and knows how satisfied everyone is…. 😆

[Kevin D]

Ah yes, how could I have been so unreasonable?

CMS (Claim Mismanagement Superfluity), would have been mentioned, but the very mention of that particular acronym seems to coincide with a sudden uncontrollable t tti ic kkk….. 🙄

[Trevor Kenward]

Kevin I cant wait for rant 2. Well said by the way

[RobBox]

Kevin

Was this before or after you read A18/2006?

[Kevin D]

Rob: Before. I just can’t wait for that…..

[Clive Hayward]

CMS- A CASE STUDY…

I’ve just done an appeal where the claimant applied for HB via CMS in March 2006.

We received nothing.

She then applied direct to us in July. Her backdating request over-egged the pudding somewhat because she tried to make out that she’d done an earlier claim to us as well as the CMS one.

I took that with a pinch of salt (chances of 2 claims being lost from the same person by 2 separate organisations very slim? [feel free to differ…]).

I asked her for further info about the “lost claims” and she then took a bit of a “head in the sand” approach- didn’t reply to my letter.

Much later, she’s come back to us and we’ve now established that yes indeed there WAS a CMS claim in March!!

We’ve got there soon enough to avoid eviction…..

[seanosul]

[quote:efe89555de=”Kevin D”]
1) The rules for claiming different benefits are significantly different.

2) Neither HMRC, nor the DWP, nor the majority of LA benefit sections are resourced anything like adequately.

3) Computer systems, so reliable thus far, will of course be able handle this. But only in your wildest and most unlikely dreams.

4) How on earth is any centralised contact centre expected to know enough to [u:efe89555de][b:efe89555de]properly[/b:efe89555de][/u:efe89555de] advise clmts? Sorry. Customers. The DWP, HMRC and LAs all have enough difficulty in trying to unscramble the rules for the benefits they currently administer in their own sphere, let alone understand the nuances of benefits administered by other organisations. So how on earth a non-specialised central contact centre can offer accurate info is beyond me. Perhaps no one cares anymore.

5) The harsh bottom line reality is that communication and cooperation between LAs, DWP & HMRC is, how shall I put it? Patchy. At best.

6) Provisions intended for implementation are consistently undermined by wholly inadequate, or abysmally drafted, legislation. Or, on occasion, non-existent legislation (e.g. see threads & CDs ad nauseum on the status of, for example, the now defunct VF).

[/quote:efe89555de]

1) Although the rules for claiming different benefits are different, the methods are not. The idea of providing information once to one set of people is good, however this is the flip side of a coin combining the database of HMRC, DWP, Local authorities. Couple that with National ID cards and one questions where this is going.
2) Resources are not a major issue within Benefits as a whole. Training is. The excessive number of changes to the Benefit system does not help this.
3) See number 1 and consider the quality of the software suppliers to Local Authorities and the DWP (look how wonderful the new RAT is!)
4) See number 1. We are supposed to trust people who are obviously going to be well paid and highly trained customer services specialists with that data. Hmm.
5) As most communication is going to be electronic we can be sure that the software suppliers will make accurate transfers of this information. We can also be sure that as well as paying said software suppliers rather a lot for support contracts, that software is going to be part of the core product and tested thoroughly! (A perfect example of this being the Landlord HMRC transfer). I of course will be chatting to the fairies at the bottom of my garden.
6) VF is now only semi defunct – it has become a PI !! This is even worse. PIs have so prostituted the idea customer service that some LAs worry more about the PI then the quality of service actually provided. Rather than looking to improve service delivery there are numerous threads on here about how to make a poor service look good within the definition. As long as the box is ticked so called top qaurtile performers get left alone – so what do people do – they just tick the box!

[jerikaz]

Can we keep bumping this to the top? Excellent thread!

[Anonymous]

[quote:35eff7b5fc]PIs have so prostituted the idea [of] customer service that some LAs worry more about the PI then the quality of service actually provided.[/quote:35eff7b5fc]

Hear absolutely hear.

For what they (and the lickspittles who kow-tow to them above all else) have done to benefits services across the country, PIs should be declared a crime against humanity.

[Anonymous]

With tin hat on!! 😳

Andy, in my (very ‘umble) opinion it’s not the PIs or the principle of monitoring that’s the problem – it’s the people who try and bend them for their own agenda – at all ends of the equation! 8)

I believe your reference was [quote:2c8373c118]lickspittles who kow-tow to them [/quote:2c8373c118]

😉

[petedavies]

Firmly with Andy on this one.

PI’s invite abuse by their very nature – just look at the way many GP’s cut the waiting time for performance.

What would happen if benefits managers started delivering services for the customers rather than for PIs – a radical thought I know but, for every one prepared to put his or her head above the parapit you will find 3 or 4 who would prefer to find better ways of fiddling the system.

I have recently heard of a L.A. who refuses to accept claims unless they are accompanied by all evidence! Great for the PI but what about the service users?

It is quite conceivable that you could have a situation where (virtually) all of a LA’s customers are v.happy with the service but have poor P.I.s but the exact opposite in the LA next-door.

Monitoring is not a problem, it is what is monitored and the fact that there are no counter-incentives for “creative accounting”.

Maybe we should have a little competition – see who can provide the best example of an abuse of P.I.s?

[Anthony Sandys]

How about replace all the existing PI’s with just one, an annual customer satisfaction survey conducted by an independent organisation?

Now that would be a difficult one to abuse and make everyone seriously look at the way they processed claims from the customer’s perspective.

[petedavies]

Nah!

Think how many consultants, managers etc etc etc you would put out of work!

Goverment (local and national) having to demonstrate they were satisfying the need of the community?

Service users deciding whether the service is any good (and what constitutes a good service)?

Oodles of cash saved from the needless monitoring of meaningless stats?

…outrageous!!!

[Anonymous]

I’ll add to Kevin’s original rant the hideous complexity of the software we have to use as well. Northgate, for example but they’re not unique, has been in existence in one form or other since 1992. There have been hundreds of patches, fixes, re-writes and bolted on bits of new functionality since then – usually, it has to be said, in an attempt to give effect to the latest piece of legislation. It is well nigh impossible for one person to understand it all, and yet it is vital that somebody does. (I’m not even sure all the staff on Northgate’s help desk understand it as well as us old time users!). Mistakes galore are made by staff who might, momentarily, remember the legislation they are applying but who inaccurately enter the data. I have one member of staff emplyed full time on MIS and BVPIs. And then there’s subsidy!

[Author]

Posts