To continue the theme that Jason started on the Incap site.

Last week I attended a DWP meeting, re-the new DLA form pilot I Bootle and Manchester. Basically they have installed a new IT system, the software of which will contain guidance to decision makers on the most common disabling conditions of DLA claimants.

There will be examples of how each disabling condition should be expected to affect the particular claimant in question as well as suggestions as to who is the most appropriate person/body to request evidence from.

The aim, according to the DWP is to put the claimant at the centre of the whole process (yeah, right!) and to facilitate early evidence gathering and more accurate decisions. Yes, that’s right, they freely admit that the general standard of first tier decision making is, shall we say, not up to scratch! To further facilitate this they also aim to re-train decision makers according to an accreditation scheme.

They also aim to offer more complete and detailed statement of reasons. I guess the thinking here is that if you explain the decision properly then the claimant will say “ah, I understand now” and go happily on his/her cheery little way not bothering to challenge the decision, which, no matter how clearly explained, will be, in many cases, a nonsense.

They are keen to assure everyone that this will not lead to computer based decisions but, as I pointed out to them, the main problem is not that decision makers do not know how to and where from to gather evidence, but that many decision makers do not truly understand how to weigh evidence. I suspect that whatever individuality decision makers have when approaching evidence will be subsumed by ‘the suggestions’ from the IT software.

As the new DLA claim form is designed to be compatible with the IT software what I suspect is really going on is that the government, keen to save on costs across the whole range of public sector spending is introducing as many IT systems as it can, so it can reduce labour costs, thus the IT and not the claimant is put at the centre of the decision making process, the decision maker becomes a hand-maiden of the technology and the claimant just becomes peripheral to the whole process.

Or am I just being cynical? Lol!

Oh, and by the way the copyright to the software will be jointly owned by the DWP and IBM, so good luck trying to get hold of the guidance contained within it.

So, the IT will havedetails of how the disabling condition can be expected to affect people.
What about people who don't fit in that box?
Or who have more than one condition?
And more difficulty in finding out the basis for decisions.
TGIF.

Carol

The software will also contain guidance on other conditions but this will not be as comprehensive. The Disability Handbook (medical guide for decision makers) is to be scrapped. But yes, you are right what about the way several conditions interact with each other? At the meeting the DWP also freely admitted that the standard of decision making in sensory impairment and mental health cases is woefully inadequate and considering there is very little room on the new DLA form to explain mental health problems I am at a loss to see how this is going to improve.

Regards
Paul

Unless I've missed something, herein lies a touch of de javu methinks - I seem to recall this discussion started and has been ongoing ever since they introduced a similar process in Incapacity Benefit - it would appear that they have gotten so carried away with the success of that exercise that they have decided to introduce it here...

Can someone please explain the logic of a system that, instead of training Officers to arrive at sensible informed decisions, you decide to introduce so called logical computer programmes which produces preset answers depending on the data inputted. We all know that this process is highly suspect in the area of Incapacity Benefit.

DLA is far more difficult to adjudicate on - and given the complexity of the Regs and large amount of Case law that it has attached to it I cannot see how something like this can work effectively. Are we going to have DM's making decisions on the strength of what the computer said?

...so the DM will have an expectation of what problems a specific condition causes and base their decision on that? So those with variable conditions such as MS, CFS and depression, and those whose mental health is expected to be 'controlled' by medication will have an even lower chance of getting DLA without appealing? And this on top of the success of CMS2? I remember a song from the past about little boxes....

So now they can blame the woeful and inadequate training and subsequent decisions on a computer programme?

Its difficult enough trying to make a reasoning and reasonable human being understand the complexity of medical and mental health conditions - maybe they should just cut out the decision making process and send the cases all straight to appeal!!

There is an interesting Comm Decision in Briefcase at the moment - CIB/664/2005 - which is well worth reading and which includes some sensible observations on the Incap electronic medical reports, and on the guidances issued to DM's from ATOS on how to operate the system - which the Commissioner says should be made available to both Tribunals and Representatives......

Is there a copy of the claim form relating to this particular pilot available? If it's as lacking in prompts and mental health content as other piloted forms I've seen, then the asserted hope of it resulting in a process which puts the claimant 'at the centre' is fundamentally flawed. How can anyone be central to a process if they have no real voice in it?

I'm already finding that when I do Attendance Allowance claims, the official claim pack feels almost irrelevantand as it only becomes useable once it's been 'amended' (supplement sheet for medication page, geared to the varied 'treatments' someone with mental health problems may be undergoing or have undergone, big lines through the 'please give us details of your GP' with a written explanation about how 'I don't see my GP, I see my... etc, a 'doctored' declaration so that only the DWP may collect further evidence, and then 'please see supplementary sheets' written in the woefully inadequate 3 out of 19 pages that actually ask about the disabling effects of someone's diagnosis with a stapled-in mental health supplement. I, for one, refuse to stop giving the DWP the information they need to at least TRY to make a decent decision.

I'm also assuming that it's going to be as difficult to get substantial information on how this program claims to work as it has been on the mouse-driven incap process. Why do the words 'computer says no' keep springing to mind?

Judy
You can download a form from this forum under the discussion headed Manchester and Bootle DLA pilot, further down this page.

Regards
Paul

here are the links to the pilot form -

• Bootle/Manchester pilot - DLA form
  
• Bootle/Manchester pilot - accompanying notes

When the computerised version of the medical report for Incapacity Benefit was introduced, there were rumblings in the far distance that the principle might be considered for EMP reports in the case of DLA.

Having heard of the complexities of the Pilot forms in Manchester, which could lend themselves to being used in conjunction with a form of computerised EMP report, we asked both DBU management (last week) and today asked senior DWP management if this is the case, and in true DWP fashion did recieve an unequivical no - more of an aknowledgement that this could be an area that ATOS will be/is looking at. They are doing a presentation in this area next month so we'll see what transpires.

Apologies - that should have read ".....in true DWP fashion did not receive an unequivical no........"

... unless of course it's a decision letter, where they're quite good at saying no

Thanks for the links