hi everyone, last year we were advised that a specific helpline number for Tax Credit enquiries had been set up for advisers of differrent organisations. i have used this number effectively (0845 3003940) until i had a run in with a supervisor at the centre who said this number was only for Inland Rev enquiry centres. a number specifically for advisers did exist but she would not tell me!

so what is the number? anyone?

thanks in advance

Just got this from our information system :

>There are also specific numbers for CAB advisers and welfare rights organisations which provide similar services to the public as do bureaux. These numbers must not be given to the public. In England, Wales and Scotland, the number is 0845 300 3946. In N. Ireland, the number is 028 9080 8311

We use this with no problems, but it still varies as to whether the call centre worker is expecting an agency or the client. The people expecting agencies to phone are much better about the security checks etc.

I have tried to use this number but was told it was for CAB's only.

I sent off a letter of complaint but have heard nothing in reply.

Do you have the details of someone I can dicuss this with at the TCO? Or someone who was involved in setting the line up, who would know about the agreement reached?

That doesn't sound at all right.
I have known other advice agencies to be using it. (I wouldn't be giving it out if it was exclusive to CAB).
Have you tried more than once ? Because there seems to be a huge variation in the knowledge and experience of those who answer. Or if they refuse to speak to you just ask to speak to the manager there and then.
Sadly I don't think the CAB is so exalted we get our own number, it was for advisers generally, because it was meant to make it possible to a) get through while still with the client, and b) speak to someone who actually understood the third party consent needed. So the number was for any third party organisation.

Thanks for that.

I'll try again.

I dont think it is good idea to publish the DWP or LA numbers on a message forum! if a member of the public gets hold of these numbers, then they could simply call up and amend any detail on anyones claim with a few pieces of information, the reason the number is not given out over the helpline is because it would defeat the object of having a priority line.

Sorry - you have a point about putting an adviser only number in a public forum. Maybe I should have emailed it direct.
I have to say I think the changing details stuff is a bit ridiculous, all of us who try to sort out cases know it is not that easy to change peoples information, even after security checking etc. (and needing to know NiNo etc) half the time we are asked to put things in writing.
However if everyone had the number it would not get us through on priority, and would defeat the point.
I have always wanted to know what percent just get routed to the normal number anyway, as it is more common than not for the staff allegedly trained to deal better with advisers to begin by asking directly for the callers NiNo.
I am feeling about 50% contrite and 50% argumentative. But I do admit I didn't think it through.

Victoria, I didnt mean to sound like a know all lol, so, I'm sorry about that. In answer to your question, if someone does call from the DWP or LA etc on the normal number, they will be told to call the priority number, and an advisor would not discuss a claim with them.

I am not asking about what happens if we ring the normal number, but confused about how when ringing the advisers number it is often answered by someone who seems to have no expectation that the person they are speaking to is not the client. I always wondered if when you called in on the advisers number some calls where re-routed to the public number. Perhaps it is just second nature after a while for the IR operators to start asking the same questions.

Actually I am feeling more cynical today. Isn't the priority line a bit of a cheat ? We get to feel our calls are being answered more quickly, which was a huge bonus when TC were introduced but not so much of an issue now, and IR only have to train a tiny proportion of their staff around third party authorisation etc. which should be basic knowledge.

It seems just wrong that an adviser phoning the public number is told to just go away. When we have a clients authority we should be able to act on their behalf. The special helpline was not to give us extra rights to act for our clients, but because IR had such difficulty recognising the authority we already held.
If we can get banks and creditors to recognise authority government organisations should have no problem.

(I promise that I am angry only in a whole-of-the-world-annoys-me way, nothing more personal).

Erm, we were told at below mentioned roadshow that the advisers line simply routes you to the same pool of operators but gives you priority. Your suspicions are confirmed.

When the LA, DWP or CAB or the like come through on a priority line, to be honest, I'm not even sure if they do jump to the front so to speak, all that I see is the signal on the phone telling us which dept is calling, the phone number you are calling signals which dept you are from, thus enabling the advisor to 'know' it is a priority call. If you came through on the public line, I would happily talk to to you if you had the client with you, if you didnt however, how would I know you are from an official dept?

Emma - In general there seem to be two areas of operation - in the Northwest of England and in Scotland (Dundee I think). Ratio of calls answered is about 3 or even 4 NWoE to 1 Scotland. Scottish helpline much more amenable and don't ask for TC689s if client not there. They may be nicer re 'this is CAB only' ridiculousness too.

Allowing for the fact of non-local workers or someone from Scotland moving to the Northwest of England, etc., listening to accents and the judicial use of a panicked 'Sorry, wrong number!" and hang up routine, just might make your tax credit enquiries run that little easier.

They may have all changed round though by now or shunted the whole thing out to India.

I can guarantee your letter of complaint will be answered by Christmas, but that the letter will be lost in the post, and will have been completely meaningless anyway. I'm not saying which Christmas either. If they want to push us all headlong into some Kafkaesque world enmired in pointless cyclical bureaucracy, unlearnable rules poorly trained staff and absent access to justice then they can only expect us to start to play the game by their own rules.

I think the argument on private numbers published on a publically accessable forum argument has run on here before in relation to the DBU's advisers' line. LASA put up enough disclaimers to show that this is for advisers only.

And if someone really did want to change anyone's details they'd never say they were ringing from a CAB or any other third party. They'd pretend to be the person themselves.

Just to add my 2 penn'orth, we were recently given a slightly different number to the one on the original post. This was at one of their roadshows for the purpose of explaining the renewal processes. Won't post it up here to avoid people getting upset. Maybe ours was for non CAB advisers.

FYO, last year we were told very definitely that the only advisers line was for CAB only. This was at the DWP annual forum where TC came along to do one of their workshops. They could not give us any justification about this and seemed genuinely shocked when the entire room started shouting at them in a distinctly non partnership fashion.

If you got the Tax Credits Bulletin No 17 they say that they can deal with advisers over the phone if BOTH claimants (in the case of a couple) are present which is somewhat impractical seeing as its quite likely that at least one of them will be at work if getting WTC. If not, then can use form TC689 for written autho or some other writen communication that has all the same infor on it. Yes, with a couple, you need both signiatures.

Would you believe our experience of the TC helpline is similar. Only yesterday the operator refused to speak to me because the client wasn't present (cos I couldn't get through when she was here!).

IR hold written authority but because it was not recorded on the IT system they would not help (apparently physical receipt of authority is not enough).

I was also told that even if the client was present they would not speak direct to me, I could only advise the client what to ask and the answers would be given to the claimant. As the enquiry was about a complex (and incomprehensible) overpayment / current payments issue that was the whole reason the client authorised us do act on her behalf.

Any resemblance between tax credits 'helpline' and a fiasco is purely incidental !!!

No reason at all why the adviser can not talk to you if you come through on the priority line, even if you dont, if the client is with you it is fine for you to talk on there behalf. The tax credit helpline has recently had a huge number of new starters, it is hard for the new people to try to grasp the complex tax credit system in a short amount of time, and its not their fault they have been thrown in the deep end, with a lot of the more upset callers already ready to rip into the adviser before they have even spoken. I wish this bored would please understand it is not the people who they talk to who make the rules.

David,

Nobody expects helpline staff to take responsibility for the rules, but we do expect helpline staff to understand them. You refer to new staff being "thrown in the deep end". I would say the real culprits are those who require inexperienced staff to do such a difficult job, straightaway. Delivering accurate advice by telephone is much harder than face to face, as anyone who has done advice work will tell you. No documents to look at, no visual cues, sometimes language problems, plus the tempting ability to curtail discussions if the going gets rough (much harder than when the client is sitting next to you). In the old days (!), the CAB service would commonly "throw people in the deep end" and put new staff on phones as a kind of induction.

The chain of causation probably goes like this: Thousands of complaints to MPs...the Minister is alerted...a directive from above requires more staff on the lines...the quantity imperative is addressed...the Minister can say the matter is sorted.

Am I wide of the mark?

Steve

I think most advisers are well use to the failings of most Gov Agencies, without which we would not be so gainfully occupied. Rightsnet probably would'nt exist, and Shawn might even be having to sign on. We also recognise that we will very very rarely get to talk to those who make the rules. I believe they reside somewhere in another distant world called "Whitehall"..............

However.....if an ordinary member of the public has a query or a problem, and sees a "Help Line" advertised, he naturally expects the staffed employed to operate that advice line to know what they are talking about, and naturally will get peeved (or even miffed) when he dicovers that they dont: He will certainly not be impressed with the "we've been thrown in the deep end, and are a steep learning curve, so bear with us" approach. This is one of the reasons why the Pension Service got itself in such a mess last year, due to inadequate training.

If we as Advisers get our advice wrong, we can be sued for damages - if IR get it wrong, the client still ends up as the one that pays it back: it's not so much moving the goal posts, but more a case of taking one away completely.