Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
UC working with representatives guidelines not followed on the phone line
Hello,
Regarding third party representative authorisation and the below guidance
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/universal-credit-consent-and-disclosure-of-information
I got told today on the UC line that the client putting consent on their journal (including all required info as detailed above) and then me ringing up once this is done is not the correct procedure.
Apparently what actually happens is that when the client puts the required info on their journal, UC then contact the client via phone to confirm that they give consent. Option 2 would require me to be an appointee (not true). Or apparently Option 3 - UC will contact me directly when they see the journal entry from the client authorising me (this has never ever happened once).
Client can’t use phone due to MH issues (hence me calling).
When I quoted the above guidance I got told this is just ‘public guidance’ and UC have their own ‘internal guidance’. The agent even went off to ‘check’ so she was clearly reading something.
So, anyone got a copy of this ‘internal guidance’? I would like to see what they are using as it contradicts the publicly available guidance.
It’s pretty tiresome having to have a ten minute debate and escalate to a supervisor every single time I call UC on behalf of a client despite following the guidance.
If I am missing something I am very happy to be told so. If not though, and UC are constantly going against their own guidance how can this be raised with them? I know I’ve read/heard other advisers having similar issues around consent so it might have been raised before in some capacity.
Thanks
[ Edited: 11 Dec 2020 at 06:08 pm by JAS1 ]Is that the UC helpline or a direct line through to the team for your client - I can certainly raise that via the stakeholder forum
Thanks Daphne! It’s the general UC helpline.
I might be mistaken but isn’t the way to get through to the relevant team to ring off the client’s registered phone number? Obviously not possible at the moment. If there’s another way that would be good to know!
Cool - I’ll contact them…
My understanding is that you can also get through if you have -
• the telephone number the claimant has registered with universal credit;
• their post code;
• the first line of their address; and
• their date of birth.
But I don’t ring the UC helpline regularly so I may be out of date…
That would be much appreciated. Thanks again!
I dread calling UC general helpline as I know it will be a battle every time despite following the guidance to the best of my knowledge.
I wasn’t even able to give those details on my last call, the agent just said no right off the bat due to their ‘internal guidance’.
Do you ask to be transferred to a Supervisor, having very deliberately taken the unhelpful advisor’s name? I find that this often has the desired effect.
To be honest, however, I try to avoid ringing the UC helpline, largely due to the rampant “gatekeeping” and obstructiveness, and also because I find the helpline staff are frequently not particularly helpful, due to lack of training more than a desire to be diffficult.
I find that obtaining the client’s permission to access their journal, and then just putting a query on there, as if it’s from the client, seems to produce the best results (although even here, I have come across service centre staff who don’t know the most basic UC regs, such as it ceases to be payable when a person reaches Pension age, and still try to fob you off).
Failing the above, it helps to have the direct email of the local partnership manager!!!!!
Cheers Benny, sounds like you have the same experiences.
Yep that’s exactly it, take name of agent and ask to speak to supervisor, supervisor ends up sorting it eventually (sometimes they have to go off and check too). It’s just a total waste of time for everyone though as it happens almost every single time.
I’ve worked on phone lines myself so I always try and do my best with the agents as I know it’s a tough job but it’s getting really tiresome having to do the same dance over and over. It’s definitely a training issue, wouldn’t be in anyone’s interest to purposefully be difficult.
In this instance client had already requested explanation on journal but couldn’t understand the response and it wasn’t making sense when she read it out to me over the phone. You are right though, might have been easier looking at the journal myself.
My partnership manager has sorted a few things for me recently, I try and use her sparingly as she is invaluable and very helpful, but I may have to call on her services again!
I’ve always been a bit unclear on what warrants use of escalation routes, partnership managers etc. Even simple things can become difficult on the normal line, not to mention frequently being given the wrong information.
Our local parnership manager always encourages us to get in touch at meetings + use escalation etc - seemingly in Edinburgh at least these routes aren’t being used as much as they could.
What’s the line at stakeholder meetings? Will DWP divert more resources to escalation if we use them more?
I’m not sure about the chances of DWP diverting more resources…
But if escalation is becoming difficult because partnership managers are overloaded then I can definitely feed that back - I’ve already fed back JAS1’s issue but waiting a reply…
Appreciated Daphne 😊
Agree with all the above, local escalation routes are effective
This may be the internal guidance they mentioned to you, but were not allowed to know about! It is public.info.
<http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2020-0646/37._Cons_and_disclosure_v21.0.pdf>
If so a couple of points, it is clear in the section on explicit consent
• it can be given by the claimant in the most appropriate format, journal, phone etc - so not too restrictive
• information claimant must give for the consent to be lawful
• the representative can be dealt with in the most appropriate way, incoming./outgoing phone calls etc - again not too restrictive
I’m not sure about the chances of DWP diverting more resources…
Haha no, I’m not holding my breath.
However, if we scaled up our use of escalation routes, encouraged more staff to use it etc, we’d obviously stretch DWP capacity. So DWP would either:
1) Do nothing, in which case we’d get more of that damn melody.
2) Punish us by diverting resources away, or
3) Recognise that third sector advisers are good for filtering calls (compared to when I first started out, I hardly ever have to phone DWP these days - and when I do, I have a specific question in mind) - and divert more resources.
Help to Claim etc. showed that at least some of them might be willing to think this way.
I’d be happy just for a ‘shorter wait line’ to reach normal staff for simple queries.
Alternatively, make a device that constantly redials 169 0310 on multiple lines - ready for you when you need it! (Ideally with the option to automatically play the same melody for DWP staff if you don’t need them when they pick up - taste of their own medicine etc.)
*Sorry for drifting away from the original topic. Last post before I go on holiday.
Agree with all the above, local escalation routes are effective
This may be the internal guidance they mentioned to you, but were not allowed to know about! It is public.info.<http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2020-0646/37._Cons_and_disclosure_v21.0.pdf>
If so a couple of points, it is clear in the section on explicit consent
• it can be given by the claimant in the most appropriate format, journal, phone etc - so not too restrictive
• information claimant must give for the consent to be lawful
• the representative can be dealt with in the most appropriate way, incoming./outgoing phone calls etc - again not too restrictive
Thanks, that’s basically confirming the same info in the link I posted. I was following their own guidelines to the letter then, not that it makes any difference it seems!
I may have found the explanation for the inconsistent approach to using “explicit consent.”
I had someone on the UC helpline telling me that, although she could see a note that the client had give permission to speak to me, she wasn’t going to because I couldn’t answer the security questions - info only client would know.
When I asked for her name and office, she told me she works for Capita.
I made a complaint and the person who responded to this told me that, at the start of the pandemic, DWP sub-contracted some of this work to Capita and Serco. He’s going to raise the training issue.
That said, I have had UC staff refuse to speak to me in the past because they’ve got confused about the difference between an appointee and representative.
I’m going to echo Helen here. This is an old problem (hello Pension Service) in a new context. They need to be using the implied consent guidance. They start by using the security guidance. When they say they have their own internal guidance it’s the security stuff they are referring to and you know instantly that you’re query is going nowhere unless you can escalate.
Whilst I’m sure outsourcing doubtless plays a role here I also think there’s a large element of BS about that. This has been a problem for decades and it remains an issue. It is purely a training and dissemination of basic info. v turnover of staff issue.
Interesting, I didn’t know that.
It’s one of those things where everyone loses. We can’t do our job, more stress for the client and we are pestering DWP for longer and more often causing them longer call times and more call volume.
Silly really.
Would refer you to following DWP internal document
This contains the following
Follow the Universal Credit (UC) consent and disclosure information for Universal Credit cases.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/universal-credit-consent-and-disclosure-of-information
Cheers Bob that’s exactly what I was quoting at them on the call. Wasn’t good enough for them though!
I’ve tended to find over the past 20 years that what you quote is largely irrelevant unless you can get escalated to a team leader but, even there, back in the days of face to face liaison with the Pension Service you would put five team leaders in a room and one of them would openly defy and decry the guidance whilst one of them wouldn’t know it existed.