Is the Department for Work and Pensions a failing organisation?

The DWP is very adept at covering up bad news about its errors.  And we also hear accounts of how staff are threatened with management action if they go public about internal problems.

Advisers regularly encounter the most awful service - indifferent, patronising and even rude and obstructive behaviour by some staff, excessive delays, abysmal benefit entitlement decisions by staff who don't know what they are doing.  There are of course many notable exceptions and I have been really impressed with the professionalism of some of the staff I have dealt with.

Certainly when I was seconded to DWP headquarters some years ago to do policy work for six months, the working atmosphere was far more pleasant than other organisations I had worked for and I really enjoyed working with most of the people I met.

However, given what us advisers encounter, the DWP as a whole very often looks seriously incompetent.  Not quite as bad as the Home Office, but in the same league.

There clearly are major problems within DWP.  The best evidence is found in their annual staff survey done each autumn.  This has consistently shown that staff morale is dreadful.  The most recently published survey is from 2011 (2012 has not yet been published).  Here are some headlines:

• Only 23% of DWP staff believe that the organisation is well managed
•  Only 14% believe that when changes in DWP are made, they are usually for the better
• Only 21% believe that actions of DWP's senior managers are consistent with DWP's values
• Only 27% believe it is safe to challenge the way things are done in DWP
• Only 16% have confidence in DWP's senior managers' decisions
• Only 38% are satisfied with the training they receive
• Only 27% are proud of working for DWP and only 24% feel that DWP inspires them ton do the best in their job
• And only 22% believe that DWP's senior managers will take any action on the results in the survey.

Even among the 200 or so senior civil servants who were surveyed, only 13% believed that the top management team modelled a culture of effective teamwork, only 20% felt that poor performance was effectively dealt with and only 34% felt the appraisal system was fair and based on merit.

You can read the full survey results here and decide yourself whether this is a evidence of a failing organisation:   DWP staff survey 2011   DWP Senior Civil Sservice Survey 2011

Gender? Name?

I just love some of the correspondence we get from the DWP.

Like the one I have had addressed to "Mr N Bateman".  (Yes "Mr".  It's significant.  Read on).  So they know my name and they know my gender and they managed to get them both right.  Well done guys!

Then we have the salutation in the letter:  "Dear Sir or Madam".

And they say benefit claimants are confused.

Tax fraud vs benefit fraud

Next time you hear someone banging on about benefit fraud (annual cost £1.5 billion), remind them of the latest estimate of the "tax gap" (annual cost £35 billion). www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/news/hmrc-compliance/

Even the Daily Mail was shocked - though some of the self-justifying comments by readers are in stark contrast to what we would see if it was an article about benefit fraud . www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2149038/Cheats-avoided-paying-taxes-year-created-35billion-hole-public-purse.html

There's also a further £25 billion owed by corporations: www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/news/hmrc-tax-disputes-report/

Yes, it's a class thing.

Universal Credit - back to giros

A relaible source has revealed to the Welfare Righter that because the DWP's computer system is unlikely to be ready in time for the start of the national roll-out of Universal Credit (October 2013), payments of the new benefit will be made "manually".

It remains to be seen what wonders will be foisted onto welfare world by the DWP's IT problems and the government's unwise rush to get the new system going.

You couldn't make it up, but they can

Dreadful story about benefit fraud investigators in Basildon pursuing a case where there was no fraud:  www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9264797/Council-claimed-key-whistleblower-who-did-not-exist-in-benefit-fraud-case.html

Evidence of errors in benefit overpayments

Every experienced welfare rights adviser knows that the scale of errors in benefit overpayment decision is massive - time and again the amounts are inflated or even when correct, the overpayments are not legally recoverable. In my experience the vast majority of the amounts allegedly overpaid in the cases I have dealt with have been wrong - either the amounts have been assessed incorrectly and the law not properly followed, or the person is still entitled to some or all of the overpaid benefit.

Using the Freedom of Information Act  2000, I have obtained figures from DWP about the scale of errors in benefit overpayments.  The data lags behind so the latest is a while ago, but the trends are consistent. 

One of the sources is the DWP's report on standards of decision making published in March 2010 . 

(www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/secretary-of-state-report-on-decision-making.pdf)

DWP's own figures on the percentage of benefit overpayment decisions which are accurate

 

2006/7	68
2005	78
2004/5	74
2003	67
2002	68

 

Furthermore, Tribunal statistics show that between 32% and 35% of appeals against benefit overpayments succeed, which rises to 47% when someone is represented.  Again, using the Freedom of Information Act, I have also established that in addition, a very high number of appeals against benefit overpayments are revised in the appellants' favour without having to go to Tribunal.  

Whichever way you look at it, the figures illustrate the importance of always appealing against an overpayment decision and that one must not accept at face value, the amounts allegedly overpaid or the state's right to be get money off people. 

Worryingly, this includes cases of fraudulent overpayments.  Sadly too few criminal defence lawyers and the criminal courts understand the importance and relevance of the benefits appeals process. 

Cap claptrap

A follow up to the item below (http://thoughtsofawelfarerighter.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/caps-it-all.html ) concerning the DWP writing to families with disabled children, scaring the life out of them by wrongly telling them they are going to have their benefits cut next April when the benefits cap comes in. 

Assuming my hearing is still intact, on BBC Radio 4 Moneybox today it was reported that the DWP said they had deliberately written out to more people than those affected.  What?

Is this really true?

Having to ask for replies

In my line of work we are used to writing to DWP and either not getting a reply or finding that the reply gets sent direct to the client.  Discourteous? Yes.  Inconvenient? Yes. But if it results in the decision being changed favourably, we tend to let it go and move onto the next problem.

Today I wrote a letter to follow up an appeal.  At the end I found that I had added a sentence asking them to reply to me.

It really is ridiculous that we have to resort to this.    In most normal written communications you can take it as read (no pun intended) that the recipient will not only read what you have written to them, but will send a reply back to you.

Destructive error upon error

Another example from Rev Paul Nicolson Chair of Zachaeus 2000 Trust (www.z2k.org)

We saw him through all these crises due to his dire poverty when receiving adult unemployment benefits. He is now employed. The universal credit will not change the problems associated with rent and council tax arrears, the enforcement of overpayments or the blame free errors by claimants and officials.

Lone father, aged 40, reared three boys while receiving unemployment benefits. No job for 20 years and desperate for work, he gets a job maintaining council houses at £10 per hour.

Wycombe Council says he can keep housing and council tax benefits but then they decide they have made a mistake and debit his rent and council tax accounts with a total of £2000.

Eviction is threatened and Bailiffs are sent in. HM Revenue and Customs give him £2000 tax credits then decide they have made a mistake and seek the return of the payment. He has a nervous breakdown and is committed to hospital for three weeks. Consequently he loses his job and is back on £65.45 a week (2010). We asked for a Doctor’s letter; the surgery wants to charge £60. He slips into overdraft. The bank wants immediate repayment of £854, most of which is charges.

The reality of benefits administration

The following harrowing example was provided to me by Reverend Paul Nicolson Chair of the Zachaeus 2000 Trust (www.z2k.org )

Local Government Ombudsman reports the case of “Mr Watson”, a single, semi- literate adult living alone in Southwark, London. Jobcentre Plus mistakenly cancelled his JSA so Southwark cancelled his housing and council tax benefits creating arrears in both accounts. On the 12^th January 2001 CSL, Southwark’s out sourced agent collecting council tax, sent Mr. Watson a summons for unpaid council tax of £235.10, plus costs, for a court hearing on 9^th February 2001.  The summons contains the following threats, in bold type and highlighted. Thousands are dispatched daily:

“If a liability order is granted the council will be able to take one or more of the following actions:  instruct bailiffs to take your goods to settle your debt - this can include your car.  You will be liable to pay the bailiffs costs which could substantially increase the debt. Instruct your employer to deduct payments from your salary or wages. Deduct money straight from your jobseekers allowance or income support. Make you bankrupt. Make a charging order against your home. Have you committed to prison”.     

His sister-in-law called on him. His body is hanging in his flat.  The police found the  summons with him, paper littered with rough calculations and a note:

“Dear ….          I at to do this I am in so much in Detr good By for ever Love……”

Threats of eviction for rent arrears were not far off. JSA was £53.05 a week after rent and council tax (now £64.30).  The Joseph Rowntree Foundation minimum income standard for healthy living after rent and council tax  is £144 a week for a single adult.

Caps it all

The benefits cap is a highly publicised cap on benefit payments which is to be introduced in April 2013.  The idea of a cap is flawed - most of the money in high benefit cases goes to landlords because of the UK's failure to regulate rent levels, for purely market-based ideological reasons.  The best cap is a cap on rents which, because of the poverty trap effect of means tested benefits, would also make it easier for people to move from worklessness into paid work.

The DWP have started writing out to people to be affected by the cap.  People receiving Disability Living Allowance (DLA) are excluded from the cap.

However, it looks like something may have gone badly wrong with the DWP's data because it seems that in at least one area, letters have been going out to families with disabled children who receive DLA and who are thus exempt.  What a mess.  Watch this space.

A selection of recent events and news which illustrate just how dreadful things in welfare-world have become.

How to create Northern ghettos and socially cleanse central London: Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea (The "Royal Borough"), and Westminster Councils are reported as proposing to to offer homeless people on benefit a take-it or leave it move to low rent areas - presumably places such as Burnley, Hull and Liverpool.  Of course, this will nicely disrupt the educational chances of the children involved, break up extended family and community support networks for such families and ensure they never get a job again by packing them off to places with lots of empty housing.  The reason the houses are empty: far fewer jobs, and so people have moved out.

Heads we win. tails you lose:  Client obtains medical evidence from his GP showing he has a serious illness with a grim outlook.  DWP officials quickly passport him through to the Support Group of Employment and Support Allowance.  That's the way it should be.  Also tries to get his Disability Living Allowance increased to reflect the new prognosis.  Now, often DWP staff dealing with DLA applications take a sneaky look at people's ESA applications and quickly use any negative evidence (even if it's inaccurate) to justify refusing DLA.  But no, his positive ESA decision was not considered relevant, so an ATOS Healthcare "professional" is asked to give advice. And lo and behold, without examining or even meeting the client, without seeing his medical records and doubtless with less clinical experience than the GP, comes up with a different prognosis (clinical practise by telepathy, methinks) DLA increase refused.

Ignore the rule book:  DWP Compliance Officer insisting on seeing evidence of capital which the law clearly states he has no right, nor any need to see.   And he asked to see it within 14 days - see below.

Nothing's urgent: Client facing prosecution.  Have pointed out errors in the amount overpaid and sentencing hearing is looming.  Made request that DWP revise the figures, setting out in some detail, why they are wrong.  So far it's taken the DWP 7 weeks to just get the papers into one place.  Was told today they have now assembled the file and next week ill allocate it to a decision maker to reconsider - which might take up to another four weeks.  And this is with the helpful input of a manager to move the thing along.  I just pray that the hearing doesn't get listed before.

Client claimed Income Support back in November 2011.  Nothing has been heard.  The matter eventually much later, comes my way.  I've written chasing up on 13th April.  Still not a sausage.  So will just have to escalate with a  formal complaint.  Yes it will take up more of their time, but what else does one do?

Snakes and ladders: Phone call from a DWP appeals officer.  Alleges that my notice of appeal and a chasing letter were never received by them.  But my subsequent letter of complaint was.  Long discussion where I try to educate them that letters sent by post are, in law, deemed to have been received and that Royal Mail say that 99.99% of all mail is delivered, so it is inherently improbable that not one, but two letters never arrived.  I also point out that everyone knows that the DWP regularly lose correspondence and that the cutting of administrative assistant grades has made it a lot worse.  At which point appeals officer relents  and agrees that things are awful and that my letters probably were received.  In the meantime, they no longer have any decent information about the client and have wiped the client's records because she hit age 61 and the problem I was appealing against has gone away...or so I thought until client's daughter phoned to say they had just had a letter saying mum has been overpaid benefit.  Back to square one.

Patience: Still waiting for a reply from the DWP's Permanent Secretary to my carefully written and detailed complaint about the client who was convicted and sentenced for a £22,000 benefit fraud.  I had pointed out all along that it was nearer £5,000.  She was so petrified about prospect of going to jail, she tried to kill, herself two weeks before the sentencing hearing.  DWP dismissed my report as irrelevant and inadmissible.  Anyway, two months after she was sentenced (thankfully, a wise and  enlightened judge who didn't quite believe the DWP's figures, suspended her jail sentence), I had a call from a DWP appeals officer to say "Yes Mr Bateman.  You're absolutely right.  it's a closed period supersession.  Overpayment is £5,000".  Anyway, my complaint has been with the Permanent Secretary (and also IDS himself following input by client's MP) since the end of January.  Still we wait.  It appears that the DWP lawyers are playing very hard to get and won't explain what they did or why.  A question in the House looms. 

Absurd: Off up north next week to do an appeal.  Client has horrendous long term health problems with a list of chronic and painful serious illnesses as long as your arm.  Hasn't been able to work since 1984 when he was fired for not telling his then employer about his health condition.  DWP sweep him up as part of welfare reform and assess him for ESA, declare he is fit for work and can go back to work within 3 months. Since then client is also diagnosed with angina.  Let's hope it's like the one I did last week where I got client moved from nil points into the Support Group.  As is standard, DWP didn't even bother to respond to my written Tribunal submission nor to attend the Tribunal to justify their decision.  Outrageous.  Even more outrageous that such behaviour is now the norm.