APPENDIX 8
Memorandum submitted by AdviceRights (OP
15)
SUMMARY
1. To consider the need for ONE offices
to be placed in dedicated building, that the office is sign posted
to make sure that claims go to correct office, that the offices
are easily accessible and inviting to clients.
2. To consider contingency plans, staff
training and secondment of staff with suitable knowledge of ONE
system, where there is a sudden influx of claims in a ONE area,
to ensure that the three day target time is met for Personal Adviser
interview.
3. To consider putting in to place plans
for emergency interviews or to "fast track" claims,
where delay in interview taking place can cause hardship. Also
that ONE team liaise with voluntary organisations in local areas,
to assist claimants with completing claim forms where necessary.
4. To consider whether all of the benefits
claims that presently come under ONE interview system need to
be retained within this. For example, claimants off work through
sickness and in receipt of Statutory Sick Pay (SSP), claimants
off work sick and claiming Incapacity Benefit during "own
occupation " period, claimants of Invalid Care Allowance.
5. To consider whether the compulsory element
of ONE interview for the relevant benefits is really necessary.
Whether the compulsion element raises fears of claimants using
ONE programme and whether this may deter some people from claiming
benefits they are entitled to.
6. To consider the wording of present literature
used to advertise and promote ONE, as this may mislead people
who are normally employed for more than 16 hours per week and
possibly cause delays in claims for benefit.
7. To consider whether by removing certain
groups of claimants from the ONE interview process, whether this
would improve the quality of interview with Personal Adviser,
for those groups that would most need the ONE interview and for
those groups that would feel they can gain from the interview.
SUBMISSION
1. We believe it is essential that the ONE
programme should be run from a dedicated office, simply dealing
with the ONE benefits and interviews. It should be made clear
to claimants in advance where they have to send any paperwork/documents
connected to their claim, for example sick notes, SSP1 forms.
2. Our reasons for this are as follows;
In the beginning the ONE interviews were held in the Jobcentre
in Nuneaton. However, claimants other than JSA claims were automatically
sending paperwork/documents to the Social Security Office, as
this was where they would expect their claim to be handled, as
not signing on for benefit. This meant that paperwork was then
being sent on to the Jobcentre before the claimant could have
start-up interview, prior to personal adviser interview. Unfortunately
documents got lost in transit, or indeed were left lying in the
in-trays at Jobcentre without being actioned. This caused serious
delays in interviews and claims being processed, this was especially
so where claimants had sent in sick notes. We witnessed many cases
where claimants went without benefit and indeed suffered hardship,
for two weeks or more, one case being six weeks before claimant
had interview and even then he was refused emergency interview.
3. Since the ONE programme in Nuneaton has
been located in the Benefits Agency this problems appears to be
over come. However, the fact that it has been located in the Benefits
Agency can in itself cause further problems. Initially it was
intended to locate ONE office in "shop front" premises
to make it inviting and easy for claimants to visit, unfortunately
this has not transpired. Many ONE claimants may only wish to make
a claim for Housing/Council Tax Benefit, Bereavement Benefit,
Invalid Care Allowance. Many of these people find a "stigma"
attached to having to visit the Benefits Agency office to do this
and are reluctant to visit this. A lot of thought needs to be
given to this before programme goes national.
4. Having stated the above, we have also
visited the ONE office in the Benefits Agency in Nuneaton. The
impression was that this was well set out for the interviews and
the interviews appeared to be done in a relaxing atmosphere. The
office surroundings were inviting. The problems is getting people
through the doors of the building initially due to their fears.
5. One of our main concerns is around the
time that can lapse between the start-up and the personal adviser
interview. The target is that the personal adviser interview should
take place within three days of the start up interview, however
it is our experience that it has often taken a lot longer than
this, when certain situations have arisen. In Nuneaton, when the
programme went compulsory in April 2000, some claimants waited
two weeks or more for interviews again causing hardship in some
cases. We have to say that when we raised the issue about these
delays, we found some of the reasons given hard to accept. We
were told that part of the problem was due to there being two
Bank Holiday Mondays in succession, surely management were already
aware of this and contingency plans could have been put in place.
We were also informed that it was partly due to claimants sending
claims to wrong office, as we stated earlier where else would
claimants send their claims if not claiming JSA?
6. We feel there were other factors for
this, some of which we raised with local Management prior to
April 2000. One of these being that the benefit issues now being
dealt with on top of JSA would mean a bigger influx of claimants
and also far more complex benefit issues and indeed a wider variety
of claimants. The other problem was how any sudden increase in
number of claimants due to redundancies, lay offs etc would be
handled. We believe that management did not act quickly enough
in picking up these points and again contingency plans appeared
to be poor. Although we would accept that part of the problem
was staff recruitment at the time and lack of staff with the expertise
to do the personal adviser interviews. This meant that staff were
being seconded from other areas of work, which unfortunately meant
there were delays in others areas, for example, processing of
claims. One of the suggestions put forward by management was that
the interview times with personal advisers would be shortened
to overcome problems. This we felt was putting unfair pressure
on personal advisers, given that they were now dealing with some
very complex issues.
7. One of the problems caused by the delay
in interviews taking place was hardship this was causing some
claimants and the refusal locally to make appointments for emergency
interviews. Indeed the local office and the ONE policy office
in Sheffield seemed to be at odds with this. When we raised this
with ONE policy office, we received written assurance that personal
advisers diaries were being managed so that emergency interviews
could be arranged. However, even up to date, the local office
refuse to book people in for emergency interviews, as it is stated
that diaries cannot be managed in this way. We do have some sympathy
with the advisers on this issue, however it needs to be resolved
even if extra resources need to be found for this. At the moment
if someone needs an urgent interview, they have to sit and wait
for a slot to be found for them, or told to call at office at
9.30am and sit and wait in hope of interview if there is a cancellation.
This can mean claimants sitting for several hours, which obviously
causes frustration and indeed some claimants will walk out, causing
them further problems.
8. In these cases of hardship, often a claimants
only recourse is a claim for a crisis loan from the Social Fund.
However, this is where the catch 22 problem kicks in . The Social
Fund section will not consider a crisis loan application until
either, in the case of JSA claim that the Jobseekers Agreement
has been signed, or in other cases a claim for benefit has been
made. However, neither of these things can be done until the personal
adviser interview has been done (unless interview is waived).
We believe that something needs to be put in place to fast track
emergency cases.
9. We mentioned earlier about the problems
of seconding staff to ONE Programme, where there was a sudden
increase in number of interviews required for whatever reason.
We were informed, and indeed we understand this point, that the
problem with seconding staff from other areas during ONE pilot
scheme, was that some staff was seconded from areas that did
not have ONE pilot, they therefore did not have the expertise
or knowledge of dealing with ONE interviews and clients. It was
therefore difficult to bring in other staff to cut down waiting
times, or on the other hand the standard of advice may be jeopardised.
Whether this situation will be rectified when ONE goes national
is difficult to say, but being that all staff in Jobcentres/Benefits
Agencies are not going to be personal advisers, then some contingency
plans will need to be put in place where there are areas of sudden
influx of claimants, due to job losses etc.
10. We have had some concern about how staff
giving advice on benefits through ONE, have received training,
especially when there have been changes to benefit system. The
personal advisers will be expected to have a wealth of knowledge
in this area, on top of being expected to understand the other
needs of some claimants. While we accept that any one can make
a mistake and at sometime wrong advice can be given, what worries
us is that this is not always down to an individual piece of advice,
it is the case that advisers do not know about certain aspects
of particular benefit and therefore important advice is never
given . An example of this is the "Welfare to work Beneficiary"
and the 52 week linking rule for Incapacity Benefit, for qualifying
claimants who start work but have to give up through illness with
the 52 week linking period. We had a claimant who fell in to this
category, and who we had passed on to ONE team prior to him starting
work. He was not advised that he would be protected and when he
had to finish work after six months, his full benefit was not
reinstated. When this was taken up with ONE team, we were informed
that the linking rule only applied to people on New Deal for people
with disabilities and also that no one was aware of what "Welfare
to work Beneficiary" was. We had to take this up further
with ONE management, who agreed that training would have to be
given in that area, however, considering how long these regulations
had already been in place, it is of some concern that advisers
were not already aware of this.
11. We note in the report forwarded to us,
under minutes of evidence taken before the committee, at question
24[42],
an answer by Mr Brown to question about determining length of
interview by an adviser. He states that the adviser will determine
the interview time as the client will have already have filled
in their claim form. However, this is often not the case as many
claimants are unable to fill out the forms themselves and often
have no one to help them with this. We have always been assured
that claimants with difficulty completing forms will have these
filled in at the interview, or prior to this. Unfortunately this
has not always been the case, with many claimants being told they
must get forms filled in themselves. This also can cause conflict
between voluntary sector advice agencies and ONE programme, as
claimants are often referred on to us for forms to be filled out,
without contacting us before hand. Sometimes this can be the same
day as the interview and we are unable to help in some cases,
due to other work commitments. There needs to be closer liaison
between ONE and other agencies in these situations.
12. Obviously the most contentious part
of the ONE programme, and indeed this may well apply to Jobcentre
Plus, is the fact that claimants have to now attend an interview
before benefit claim can be processed, unless interview is waived.
Many claimants object to the fact that they have to be interviewed
before they can have a benefit to which they believe they have
entitlement by right. This is especially so when they see this
as a work focussed interview, at a time when work may be the last
thing on their mind, given their illness/disability, caring role,
child care responsibilities or bereavement. We can understand
a lot of these concerns and indeed we are against the compulsory
element of ONE, if a system works well it does not need compulsion.
Many other of course will see this differently, including many
claimants, who will welcome the idea of being able to sit down
with a named person, a voice that they can put a face to and will
actually assist them in making claims for correct benefits, instead
of being left in the dark as to what to claim, as has often been
the case in the past. They will welcome the opportunity of being
helped back into training or work in a friendly way. The advisers
themselves must also feel a lot more job satisfaction in that
they feel that they can make a genuine difference to peoples lives,
rather than just processing claims, and that cannot be a bad thing.
However, we share the views of a lot of claimants, and indeed
the ONE advisers in a lot of cases, that there should be certain
claimants who do not have to go through this route to obtain certain
benefits.
13. We were surprised, as again so were
some of the ONE staff, to find out after ONE was introduced, that
people in work who went sick and were paid Statutory Sick Pay
only from work, would be subject to a ONE interview if they claimed
a ONE benefit. These people are still employed and are paid SSP
in the same way as wages would be paid. Many of the people we
see in this category object strongly to the interview and indeed
some will say they will forgo a claim rather than go through this.
This will be especially so if the claim is purely for help with
Housing and/or Council Tax Benefit. We often have to talk people
in to attending the interview, but we can understand their reluctance
in doing so. We cannot see any justification for people being
paid SSP only having to attend the interview for other benefit
claims.
14. We find that a lot of self employed
people, who when going sick will probably have to claim Incapacity
Benefit from day one, also feel the same way. Many will say that
it is the first time they have had to claim anything from the
state and yet they have to have a work focussed interview before
they can claim. Again many are in two minds about whether they
should bother claiming. Certainly in one case we had to phone
ONE team and arrange a time for the person to be seen, other wise
he would not have lodged his claim.
15. While were always aware that claims
for Incapacity Benefit would go through ONE programme, again a
lot of people who are employed are unhappy with this. As a lot
of these people will be switching from SSP, it is quite likely
they have been sick for six months and are going to be subject
to the Personal Capability Assessment. A lot of claimants get
very upset about and confused about going through ONE interview
at about same time, especially if they have mental health problems.
This is even more confusing when they satisfy the Personal Capability
Assessment, but still have to attend ONE interview to discuss
possibilities of work, when indeed they have just been found incapable
of work.
16. Probably an even more contentious group
of claimants are those that wish to claim Invalid Care Allowance.
The majority of people whom we see in this category cannot believe
that they have to have an interview to claim this, especially
when they are spending the most part of their time caring for
somebody. Again we often have to cajole claimants to going to
the interview so they can claim this benefit. This can be very
difficult, when often the reason for claiming is purely to get
the Carers Premium on Income Support, due to fact that there is
an overlapping benefit already in payment. Some people who have
had underlying entitlement to Invalid Care Allowance (ICA), due
to claiming another contributory benefit, have to take up the
entitlement to ICA when the other benefit stops for some reason.
Although they already have entitlement, they are still expected
to go through ONE system to get the benefit. Even allowing for
the fact that earning level for cut off from ICA has increased,
which may encourage those carers that are able to return to work
to do so, we cannot see any justification for ICA claimants having
to go through ONE system.
17. While of course those involved in ONE
would argue that the interviews are done in a positive note and
are sympathetic to peoples needs at the time, and we accept that
this is the case, a lot of this is about the perception of the
claimant . This is important in making ONE work and one of the
reasons why we are against the compulsory element. We find that
most claimants of benefits mentioned will know in their own minds
when they are ready to look for work . They will be asking questions
about what help they can get and often we will advise them about
ONE and they are only to pleased to voluntarily attend an interview
that helps them focus on work or training. We find this especially
so with people on the sick, who wish to return to work but need
some type of guarantee that if it goes wrong due to health problems,
that they can return to benefits without problems. When things
like the 52 week linking rules, protection through Disabled Persons
Tax Credit and the fairly recent linking rules on mortgage interest,
are explained to them, they are only to happy to go for ONE interview.
It is when people feel they are being forced to go to an interview
to discuss possibilities of work, when they don't feel work ready,
that they become disillusioned.
18. We have raised our concern in the past
about the literature that is put out to advertise ONE, as we feel
that some of this is misleading and indeed may well put off some
people from claiming in time for benefits, as they feel it is
not relevant to them. So far we have not had any official reply
to our comments on this, which we find disappointing. Most of
the literature says; ONE service is available for anyone who;
is aged 16 to 59; is not working, or works less than 16 hours
a week on average and wants to claim a ONE benefit. We believe
that people who are employed for more than 16 hours a week, but
off work through sickness would take this as not applying to them.
As a consequence they could lose out on benefit for not claiming
in the proper manner and find it very difficult to get benefit
backdated. When we raised this issue locally, we were informed
it was unlikely that this would be changed, as it was all about
"interpretation". However, we believe that all publicity
should be clear and implicit in its meaning and should not be
left to interpretation, which may result in a failure to claim
or loss of benefit.
19. We have been asked to comment on peoples
attitudes to having to undergo a work- focussed interview and
also what they may get out of this. We have already touched on
the feelings of certain groups of people, who feel both aggrieved
and apprehensive about attending interviews that are work focussed,
at a time that they are claiming a benefit that does not relate
in any way to them being work ready . Again, as stated earlier
we often have to convince claimants to go to the interview, which
is something that as a voluntary organisation and impartial organisation,
we do not like to do, especially as we oppose the compulsion element
of ONE programme. As for what people get out of it, this will
vary from individual to individual and from group to group. Again
we have highlighted some people who would welcome interviews positively
and indeed have felt they have got something out of this. However,
there are others who have been very angry about having to go through
this and indeed those who go through it and are just relieved
that it is over and done with. There may be more value in considering
whether certain claimants, for example those claiming SSP or Op,
should be exempted from the interview. This would allow more quality
time for other groups to whom the interview may be more appropriate.
Norman Hendry
Co-ordinator
20 October 2001
42 The ONE Service Pilots, Seventh Report of
the Social Security Committee (with Employment Sub-committee),
Session 1998-1999, HC 412. Back
|
