| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 89
who will immediately pass it on to the person dealing with that area of work. All expressions of dissatisfaction are recorded and dealt with immediately where practical. An interim response is issued to the customer if the query cannot be resolved quickly. If it relates solely to another Government Department it is acknowledged and passed to the appropriate area. Managers are encouraged to review cases locally to identify trends/problems and to record any changes or improvements made.Agency staff in Contributions Agency aim to deal with customer complaints within 5 working days. They will provide information on the next stage in the complaints procedure if the complainant is not satisfied. Those customers who are still dissatisfied may complain directly to me and I will normally reply within 10 working days. From 1 June 1995, customers who have had their cases investigated by myself but feel that it has not been satisfactorily resolved can have it investigated by an Independent Adjudicator. Where the customer is still not satisfied with the outcome, they may ask their Member of Parliament to submit the complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for investigation and review.
There is a separate route of complaint to the Office for the Determination of Contribution Questions (ODCQ) in the case of disagreements with a Secretary of State decision or a ruling on a contribution question.
I hope that you will find this information useful. If I can be of any further assistance please let me know.
Letter from K. C. Caldwell to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 19 June 1995:
The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about:
performance indicators and targets for measuring performance in answering letters and telephone calls from members of the public and what policy and procedures exist for dealing with complaints from members of the public; when this policy was last updated; what time limit there is for dealing with complaints and what follow-up procedure exists where complainants are not satisfied with the given response.
The Information Technology Services Agency provides computer systems and support to all DSS Agencies, DSS Headquarters, Employment Services and the Northern Ireland Social Security Agency, to enable them to provide services to their direct customers. Contracts, in the form of Service Agreements, are in place to cover the supply of these services to our internal customers and to enable them, in turn, to meet their performance targets.
If a member of the public had an enquiry or complaint this would be addressed to the branch of the Department that handles their business. For example, the Benefits Agency, Contributions Agency, Employment Service, would have lead responsibility and, if the topic involved information technology, we would be asked to provide comment and support. We would do this within timescales and targets that are set by the branch taking the lead for the Department.
This Agency participates in Open Government and has one point of contact for this, ITSA Public Relations.
I hope you find this reply helpful.
Letter from Ann Chant to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 19 June 1995: I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency's procedures and performance in dealing with correspondence and telephone calls.
The Agency's Charter includes standards to be achieved in responding to letters and telephone calls from clients.
Performance on telephone calls is measured by the British Telecom call handling service, and we aim to respond to 80 per cent. of telephone calls to the National Enquiry Line (NEL) or Child Support Agency Centres (CSAC) within 20 seconds. NEL is a
Column 90
dedicated service which provides advice and information on more straightforward enquiries. More detailed and case specific enquiries are generally referred to the CSACs. During the year ending 31 March 1995, over 90 per cent. of telephone calls to NEL and 66 per cent. to CSACs were answered within 20 seconds.We aim to reply to clients' written enquiries within 10 days and performance is monitored centrally within the Agency. During the year ending 31 March 1995 the Agency replied to 34 per cent. of written enquiries within 10 days.
We aim to acknowledge clients' complaints within 2 days and to send a full response within 10 days. Complaints procedures were reviewed in January 1994. Customer Services Managers record correspondence received from clients or their representatives indicating dissatisfaction with the Agency's service or procedures. If the complainant is not satisfied with the response, they may write to the CSAC Manager, or, in field offices to the Divisional Manager. If, following their response, the complainant is still not satisfied, our Charter invites them to write to me at the Child Support Agency, Room 2420, Millbank Tower, 21 24 Millbank, London SW1 4QU.
Clients may, of course, also request their Member of Parliament to submit their complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for investigation and review.
I hope this is helpful.
Letter from Ian Magee to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 19 June 1995: The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about what performance indicators and targets there are for measuring the performance of his Department in answering letters and telephone calls and what policy and procedures exist for dealing with complaints by members of the public. I will explain the performance and target indicators and the policy and procedures that exist for the Benefits Agency (BA). As stated in the BA Customer Charter, we aim to reply to correspondence within 10 working days. The BA carries out an annual National Customer Survey which includes a question about the length of time customers have had to wait for a reply to their letters. The 1994 National Customer Survey showed, on average, that customers waited 12 days compared to 13 days in 1993. The BA is continuing to look at ways of improving the service provided in order to fully meet our Charter commitment.
All BA offices have their own standard for how quickly they answer telephone calls. As BA customers increasingly prefer to conduct their business by telephone, traffic volumes have risen. The capacity of many office switchboards has not been adequate to keep pace with the increase and a programme is under way to replace or upgrade all switchboards to provide easier and faster access. The programme is scheduled for completion during the year beginning April 1997 when National guidelines will be set.
Telephone performance is currently monitored by Area Directors' staff who telephone every office in their area 20 times a quarter. The aim is to measure response times and quality of greeting; in addition one of these calls asks a question and measures staff knowledge. Results show that the average response time is 8 rings for an office to answer the telephone and three rings for an extension within the office to respond.
The complaints system is also explained in the BA's Customer Charter as well as the Tell Us About It leaflets. I enclose a copy of both leaflets for your information and they have also been placed in the Library. They are available in eleven languages including Urdu, Punjabi, Turkish, Chinese and Welsh.
The BA's complaints policy was revised in 1991 with the appointment of Customer Service Managers.
If a customer is dissatisfied with the level of service they receive from the BA they can complain to the appropriate Customer Service Manager. The Customer Service Manager's name and telephone number is displayed in the public caller area of each BA office. The customer will receive a response within 7 days.
If the customer remains dissatisfied, they can write to the District Office Manager whose name will be provided by the office on request.
Column 91
You may also be interested to know that the BA is currently reviewing its complaints procedures and we expect to have completed this by July 1995.I hope you find this reply helpful.
Letter from Peter Mathison to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 19 June 1995:
The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about our performance targets for answering telephone calls and letters, and our complaints procedure.
Over the past two years we have made many improvements in the service we can give to war pensioners. The launch of the War Pensions Agency in April 1994 included the publication of our first Charter Standard Statement, which defines service targets and standards including a complaints procedure if we fail to deliver the service we promise. Our published targets are:
Telephone calls to War pensions Helpline answered within 30 seconds. If we cannot answer the question straight away, we will call back at a time convenient to the pensioner.
letters from the public acknowledged within 5 working days followed by a full response by letter or telephone within 10 working days.
The War Pensions Agency telephone Helpline provides the main point of contact for the whole of the Agency and is the number quoted on all correspondence and publicity material. It includes a new automatic call distribution system which amongst other things provides statistics for monitoring and target purposes.
Six months after Helpline was set up, we started a rolling programme of customer perception surveys. In December 1994, these showed that 93% of those asked said the service they received was either very good or good. In 1994/5 calls were answered with an average wait time of only 6.9 seconds and 95% of calls were answered within 30 seconds.
As part of our continued drive to improve standards of service, the use of customer satisfaction surveys are reflected in our business plans. We are currently awaiting results of the 1995 survey, including the area of correspondence, which will be carefully examined and improvement initiatives coordinated by the Total Quality Management team.
In 1994/95, 1,781 replies were sent by our operational sections in respect of letters addressed to Ministers or myself within 95 per cent. being sent within the 10 day target. The complaints system we now have in place, including a database of information, will enable us to monitor our targets for acknowledgement and replies in other areas of correspondence.
Turning to our complaints system, pensioners with concerns can telephone the War Pensions Helpline on 01253 858858, the Helpline staff will be only too pleased to answer the query.
Our Charter Standard Statement states that if things go wrong, any written complaint will be acknowledged within 5 working days, and a full reply sent within 10 working days. If we think it will take longer than this, we will write or telephone the person concerned to explain why and let them know when to expect a full reply to their complaint.
If a person is dissatisfied with the way the complaint has been dealt with, they can contact our Customer Service Manager. If, however, they are still not satisfied they can get in touch with me. Details of how to do this are contained within the Charter Standard Statement. In addition to this, a person can also ask their MP to refer their case to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for investigation and review.
In addition to the formal complaints procedure, pensioners can discuss any concerns with the many ex-service organisations and we fully investigate any matters referred to us as a result. People can also, if they wish, discuss their cases with their local War Pensions Committee (WPC). These are independent of the Agency and are made up of members who are disabled ex-service persons, some of whom work for voluntary associations. Again, any recommendations mady by the WPCs are fully considered. Information on how to contact ex-service organisations or the WPCs is contained in leaflets
Column 92
available from the Agency and our national network of War Pensioner's Welfare Service offices.I hope you have found this information useful.
Invalidity Benefit
Mr. Redmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many invalidity benefit awards have been (a) reviewed, (b) disallowed following review and (c) reinstated on appeal in each of the last 12 months in the Doncaster and Mexborough area of the Benefits Agency. [28262]
Mr. Hague: This is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.
Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 15 June 1995: The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about Invalidity Benefit (IVB) awards in Doncaster and Mexborough in each of the last 12 months. As you may know, Incapacity Benefit (IB) replaced IVB on 13 April 1995. The Benefits Agency's (BA) Doncaster District has offices on two sites at Castle House and St Peters House. Unfortunately, statistics of IVB decisions reviewed, and IVB decisions disallowed on review at Doncaster District are not available for the period June 1994 to September 1994 because they have been destroyed.
Mexborough BO is part of the BA'S Rother and Dearne District which comprises offices at Rotherham, Goldthorpe, Mexborough and Rotherham North. Reviews of IVB/IB cases for customers of Mexborough BO are dealt with at that office.
The available information is provided in the table at Appendix 1.
I hope you find this reply helpful.
Appendix 1
|IVB/IB awards
|applications |IVB/IB awards
|for |disallowed |IVB/IB awards
|review/awards|following |reinstated on
Month |reviewed |review |appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
June 1994
Doncaster DO |<1>- |<1>- |24
Mexborough BO |49 |30 |14
July 1994
Doncaster DO |<1>- |<1>- |17
Mexborough BO |28 |22 |7
August 1994
Doncaster DO |<1>- |<1>- |21
Mexborough BO |42 |23 |9
September 1994
Doncaster DO |<1>- |<1>- |26
Mexborough BO |49 |43 |7
October 1994
Doncaster DO |107 |67 |31
Mexborough BO |25 |11 |5
November 1994
Doncaster DO |124 |89 |28
Mexborough BO |37 |22 |6
December 1994
Doncaster DO |75 |54 |23
Mexborough BO |18 |4 |2
January 1995
Doncaster DO |161 |127 |14
Mexborough BO |37 |16 |0
February 1995
Doncaster DO |93 |68 |22
Mexborough BO |45 |19 |0
March 1995
Doncaster DO |177 |125 |8
Mexborough BO |40 |18 |0
April 1995
Doncaster DO |36 |26 |1
Mexborough BO |7 |0 |0
May 1995
Doncaster DO |4 |2 |0
Mexborough BO |3 |3 |0
<1> Records not available.
Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit
Mr. Redmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals applied for benefit in respect of chronic bronchitis or emphysema by Benefits Agency area directorate for the year 1994 95; how many
Column 94
of those claims have been successful; how many of the claims were refused on the basis of (a) insufficient lung function loss; (b) insufficient length of service and (c) non-diagnosis of class 1 pneumoconiosis; and what were the percentages of those whose claims were refused by each directorate. [28261]Mr.Hague: The administration of industrial injuries disablement benefit is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.
Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 15 June 1995 : The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about claims made for chronic bronchitis and emphysema in each Benefits Agency (BA) area directorate in 1994 95.
Information about the number of claims, their success rate and the number disallowed for various reasons is not available in the exact format requested. This is because figures for the number of claims made in the 6 months since the end of the initial 12 month take-on period, September 1993 October 1994, have been collected separately and in a slightly different format. This is because during the take-on period some claim details were collected by the BA's Disability Benefit Centres for ease of reference.
The available information is shown at Appendices A, B and C. Appendix A outlines the numbers of claims made, those successful and the numbers and percentage refused on the basis of insufficient length of service ie 20 year rule. This information was collated at Area Directorate (AD) level and covers the period from September 1993 October 1994. Appendix B outlines the numbers and percentages of claims disallowed as a result of insufficient lung function loss and non-diagnosis of Class 1 pneumoconiosis. This information was collated by the Disability Benefit Centres.
Since October 1994, information on the number of customers who did not meet the criteria for lung function loss and category 1 pneumoconiosis has been collated by the AD's. Appendix C details information about the number of claims made, those successful and the claims disallowed as a result of the three categories. This information covers the 6 month period October 1994 to March 1995, the end of the 94/95 statistical year.
I hope you find this reply helpful.
Column 93
Appendix A September 1993-October 1994
|Failed
Area |Claims |Successful |(20 year rule)|Per cent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scotland and Northern Territorial Directorate
AD1 Tyne Tees |7,142 |583 |148 |2
AD2 South Yorkshire and Humberside |6,521 |773 |171 |3
AD3 North and West Yorkshire |2,676 |420 |90 |3
AD4 Glasgow |242 |8 |20 |8
AD5 North, Central and West Scotland |1,895 |60 |93 |5
AD6 East Scotland |2,394 |94 |86 |4
Wales and Central Territorial Directorate
AD1 East Midlands |5,685 |611 |135 |2
AD2 Midlands South West |652 |55 |29 |4
AD3 West Mercia |3,668 |381 |217 |6
AD4 Wales |9,388 |1,316 |616 |7
AD5 Merseyside |501 |49 |25 |5
AD6 Greater Manchester |328 |31 |15 |5
AD7 Lancashire and Cumbria |2,270 |147 |148 |7
Southern Territorial Directorate
AD1 Anglia |25 |3 |5 |20
AD2 Chilterns |22 |4 |6 |27
AD3 South London and West Sussex |0 |0 |0 |0
AD4 West Country |144 |3 |11 |8
AD5 East London and Essex |0 |0 |0 |0
AD6 South East |470 |32 |35 |7
AD7 Wessex |0 |0 |0 |0
All tables include claims received but not decided within the period.
Source: 100 per cent. count and subject to amendment.
Appendix B September 1993-October 1994: Claims disallowed due to insufficient lung function loss or less than category 1 pneumoconiosis-by disability benefit centre DBC |Failed lung test |Per cent. |Less than category 1|Per cent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Edinburgh |1,296 |49 |1,113 |42 Glasgow |855 |48 |754 |43 Leeds |6,551 |50 |3,957 |30 Leeds (Appeals) |780 |40 |1,161 |59 Llanishen |2,142 |49 |1,358 |31 Manchester |1,187 |48 |900 |36 Euston |221 |46 |204 |42 Stoke |1,926 |51 |2,250 |60 Newcastle |3,965 |53 |2,598 |35
Appendix C: October 1994-March 1995
Fail (reason)
Area |Claims |Success |20 year rule |Lung test |Pneumo. category
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scotland and Northern Territorial Directorate
ADI Tyne Tees |185 |31 |5 |81 |65
AD2 South Yorkshire and Humberside |214 |33 |9 |127 |95
AD3 North and West Yorkshire |121 |21 |9 |59 |23
AD4 Glasgow |5 |0 |1 |9 |10
AD5 North, Central and West Scotland |24 |1 |6 |20 |10
AD6 East Scotland |29 |2 |1 |20 |24
Wales and Central Territorial Directorate
AD1 East Midlands |223 |53 |11 |109 |96
AD2 Midlands and South West |8 |1 |3 |0 |4
AD3 West Mercia |100 |9 |11 |55 |35
AD4 Wales |387 |92 |54 |332 |206
AD5 Merseyside |14 |0 |6 |9 |7
AD6 Greater Manchester |14 |1 |0 |2 |0
AD7 Lancashire and Cumbria |53 |6 |13 |37 |18
Southern Territorial Directorate
AD1 Anglia |0 |0 |1 |0 |2
AD2 Chilterns |0 |0 |0 |0 |1
AD3 South London and West Sussex |0 |0 |0 |0 |0
AD4 West Country |8 |3 |1 |4 |3
AD5 East London and Essex |42 |0 |3 |1 |0
AD6 South East |17 |1 |4 |15 |8
AD7 Wessex |0 |0 |0 |0 |0
All tables include claims received but not decided within the period. Similarly some claims received in the earlier period will have been decided
later. For this reason percentages of unsuccessful claims are not included as they would be misleading.
Income Support
Mr. Bradley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the outcome of the audit of the administration of income support discretionary severe hardship payments to persons aged 16 and 17 years and what changes in policy or practice have resulted. [28303]
Mr. Roger Evans: The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 15 June 1995: The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about the outcome of
Column 96
the audit of the administration of Income Support discretionary severe hardship payments to persons aged 16 and 17 years.Prior to 3 May 1994, all decisions on claims for Income Support from 16/17 year olds, under the severe hardship provision, were made by the Severe Hardship Claims Unit (SHCU) in Glasgow. These decisions, with the exception of likely nil and complex decisions, were devolved during April 1994 to the District Offices. I have attached, at Annex A, a list of the cases that are now referred to SHCU. During May 1994, the Benefits Agency Internal Audit carried out a review of the procedures for dealing with claims for Income Support from 16/17 year olds under the severe hardship provision. Their report was produced in July 1994. Annex B outlines the main findings.
As a result of the report the Benefits Agency has introduced one procedural change involving the introduction of a register of officers
Column 97
who are authorised by the Secretary of State to make decisions under the severe hardship provisions. We have also reminded staff of previously issued advice on best practices to follow in administrating claims from 16/17 year olds.I hope you find this reply helpful.
ANNEX A
Cases to be referred to SHCU for decision
1. Likely nil decisions
2. Likely revocations
3. Where a care order is currently in force
4. Partner cases
5. If payment is not appropriate from the date of claim 6. If backdating because of good cause is appropriate
7. If severe hardship payments have been made for 16 weeks continuously
8. All cases if an authorised officer is unavailable
9. If a young person has not registered for Youth Training after a short term direction has expired
ANNEX B
Findings of the Benefit Agency Internal Audit Report on Income Support for 16/17 year olds
1. Development of decision making in the pilot exercise was extremely successful and there is no reason to doubt effective national devolution.
2. From the sample of cases examined, the average time from receipt of claim to interview was 2.74 days. This delay was compounded by the number of claims which were not identified on receipt.
3. Audit established a payment accuracy rate of 93.17 per cent. from the cases examined which was in line with Agency targets despite the devolution of some of the decision making from the Severe Hardship Claims Unit (SHCU).
4. Development of decision making has produced an administrative saving for the Agency.
Column 98
Lone Parents
Mr. Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research he has undertaken into the halving of the population of single parents who work rather than draw income support; and if he will make a statement. [27220]
Mr. Burt: Research commissioned by this Department on changes in lone parenthood between 1989 to 1993, due to be published shortly, suggests that the proportion of lone parents in work is now increasing steadily and that the increase is directly associated with the 1992 change in the qualifying hours condition in family credit. Benefit statistics show that in 1988 there was one lone parent on family credit for every 10 on income support; by 1994, this ratio had improved to around one for every four.
The Department commissions extensive research on lone parenthood and the barriers to working for all those on income support. A large part of the reduction in the proportion of lone mothers in employment since the 1970s is accounted for by an increase in the proportion of lone mothers with a child below school age. The introduction of assistance with child care costs in family credit housing benefit and council tax benefit in October 1994 should help to address changes caused by changes in the composition of lone parenthood.
The table shows that the proportion of lone mothers in work fell from 47 per cent. in 1977 to 1979 to 41 per cent. in 1991 to 1993--general household survey data. These figures include those working part time within the rules of income support and supplementary benefit. However, the number of lone parents in work is now actually increasing--from around 375,000 in 1980 to around 500,000 in 1992.
Column 97
Changes in the proportion of lone mothers in employment 1977-79 to 1991-93
Percentage
|1977-79|1979-81|1981-83|1983-85|1985-87|1987-89|1989-91|1991-93
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Working full-time |22 |23 |19 |17 |18 |17 |18 |17
Working part-time |24 |25 |23 |22 |24 |23 |24 |23
All working |47 |49 |42 |39 |42 |40 |43 |41
Notes:
Part-time work is defined as work for less than 30 hours per week.
Source:
1. Table 5.9 General Household Survey 1993.
2. Policy Studies Institute, "Changes in Lone Parenthood 1989 to 1993" (awaiting
publication). General Household Survey 1977-79 and 1991-93.
Housing Benefit
Mr. Bradley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to assist families in the private rented sector whose levels of housing benefit have been restricted. [28307]
Mr. Roger Evans: As a part of the October changes to housing benefit, we have proposed that local authorities should have discretion to pay more than the restricted rent in cases where they believe failure to do so would cause exceptional hardship. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee, together with representations received from the local authority associations.
Column 98
Mr. Bradley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from landlords about the impact of the proposed housing benefit changes on the availability of private rented accommodation to people on housing benefit; and if he will make a statement. [28304]
Mr. Roger Evans: The Department has received a number of representations from landlords. These have expressed concerns about a number of aspects of the proposals. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee, together with representations received as a result of consultation with the local authority associations.
Column 99
Mr. Bradley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will reconsider his plans to tighten restrictions in housing benefit rent levels. [29084]
Mr. Roger Evans: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently considering the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee on the proposed changes. He is also considering views expressed by the local authority associations.
Family Credit
Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of children who live in a family which is in receipt of (a) income support and (b) family credit. [28807]
Mr. Roger Evans: The information is set out in the table:
Benefit |Number of
|children<1>
-----------------------------------------
Income Support |<2>3,185,000
Family Credit |<3>1,180,000
<1> Figures include dependent children
up to the age of 18.
<2> Income Support Statistics Quarterly
Enquiry May 1994.
<3> Family Credit Statistics Quarterly
Enquiry October 1994.
Refugees and Asylum Seekers
Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many (a) refugees and (b) of those seeking refugee status are in receipt of one or more social security benefits; and what is the cost of (a) and (b) . [28882]
Mr. Roger Evans: In May 1994, there was 42,140 asylum seekers in receipt of income support. The estimated annual cost of providing income support and housing benefit is £210 million. Information about asylum seekers receiving other social security benefits is not collected. Information is not available in respect of refugees who are not separately identified within the social security scheme.
| Next Section
| Home Page |