Forum Home → Discussion → Disability benefits → Thread
PIP refusing to take claim from person receiving Carers Allowance
I am sure we have all seen DWP submissions trying to argue that if a person receives CA they should not be eligible for PIP…
It now seems that someone has gone one step further. My client’s daughter told me that she rang the new claims number on behalf of her mum. Having checked her mum’s NI number the agent told her that there was ‘no point’ in her applying for PIP as she was in receipt of CA. The daughter said that she had been advised to help her mum claim PIP (by me) but the reply was, it makes no difference, how can she qualify for PIP if she gets CA? She said she was made to feel a bit stupid and so didn’t proceed to make the claim.
I have never come across PIP basically refusing to accept a claim like this before. Has anyone else?
It isn’t any part of the call agent’s role to vet potential claims.
Obviously merits a complaint.
Not only is the telephony agent acting beyond their authority, gatekeeping and giving incorrect information, which is bad enough, but they obviously are doing so in total ignorance of the relevant Regulations and Case Law.
Evidently the DWP have totally abandoned any pretence of competence or professionalism.
Evidently the DWP have totally abandoned any pretence of competence or professionalism.
They used to pretend to be competent or professional?
My understanding is that they have 100% staff turnover i.e for every one they lose they can recruit one.
It’s a scenario which is bound to produce under-trained and inexperienced staff and, sorry to bore on about this, but it’s the whole “call centre crack” again. “I don’t know but if I say ‘something’ this person won’t know any better and I’ll sound super-confident with my dreadful advice.”
The plot thickens…
On my advice the claimant rang back to try to make a new claim for PIP. Passed security etc and then was told that there was a message on the screen saying that she was “not eligible” to claim PIP. The call handler said that he could not take her claim any further because of this and asked her why she was trying to claim again when she has been told that she cannot? She was directly told that it was not possible to accept a new claim.
Does anyone know how the PIP computer system might record reasons for non-eligibility? There are some legitimate reasons, being in prison, time spent abroad, etc that could be listed as tick boxes that properly prevent claims from being made. I am interested to know how the original call handler has seemingly prevented a second attempt at a claim.
Does anyone know how the PIP computer system might record reasons for non-eligibility? There are some legitimate reasons, being in prison, time spent abroad, etc that could be listed as tick boxes that properly prevent claims from being made.
Are there? Just because someone is not entitled to PIP, doesn’t mean that they aren’t allowed to claim it and have their entitlement or non-entitlement determined by a decision - even where there is an obvious barrier to entitlement.
This whole episode is very peculiar. I would suggest some or all of:
1. Ringing PIP with you there.
2. Raising with partnership manager and asking what’s going on
3. Requesting a clerical claim
4. Complaint
5. Subject access request to see what’s on it.
Are there? Just because someone is not entitled to PIP, doesn’t mean that they aren’t allowed to claim it and have their entitlement or non-entitlement determined by a decision - even where there is an obvious barrier to entitlement.
Yes, good point.
My question still stands though if anyone knows the answer? I am wondering whether someone has deliberately entered false data into the PIP computer system to prevent a claim being made.
Thanks re. 1-5, I am on with most of these. She is mostly interested in getting the start date backdated to when the original claim should have been taken, which I have asked her MP to take up.
We’re all guessing here but it sounds to me as though the first call handler simply made something up to justify something on screen which they couldn’t explain. The second call handler also saw something but presumably had the same lack of access to be able to explain and elected to not BS in the way the first clearly did.
In terms of accusations of entering false data I think conspiracy theories have no place here. The answer will always be a cock up. My bet will be that the NINO will be a digit out and is either not valid or belongs to someone who cannot at this time claim PIP.
As Elliot suggests, this is sorted by a conference call where you work through the client details they have and figure out what the mismatch is. Nothing more complex than that.
I am not accusing, I am wondering…
Time will tell, I will let you know how it shakes down.
That’s as may be but is it an appropriate go to response in any scenario like this? You surely cannot be serious? The mere suggestion that “someone has deliberately entered false data into the PIP computer system to prevent a claim being made.” puts conspiracy theory ahead of common sense. There are no dark forces at work here.
Are there? Just because someone is not entitled to PIP, doesn’t mean that they aren’t allowed to claim it and have their entitlement or non-entitlement determined by a decision - even where there is an obvious barrier to entitlement.
Yes, good point.
My question still stands though if anyone knows the answer? I am wondering whether someone has deliberately entered false data into the PIP computer system to prevent a claim being made.
Thanks re. 1-5, I am on with most of these. She is mostly interested in getting the start date backdated to when the original claim should have been taken, which I have asked her MP to take up.
Hi - if you DM/email me the client details I can escalate via stakeholder forum - this sounds really weird!
I am wondering whether someone has deliberately entered false data into the PIP computer system to prevent a claim being made..
I’d be extremely surprised if any data had been entered to stop claims. I can easily imagine someone making an entry into the client record saying, e.g. “I explained that they aren’t entitled and shouldn’t claim” and the next call agent working from that.
Is there an update on this? Surely resolved by now? I think we should be told.
Well, Mike McEnroe, some aspects of this case/complaint are ongoing but as you correctly predicted, on the central issue of this thread it is definitely more cock-up than conspiracy theory.
It turned out rather odd. She actually had a PIP claim already in payment and has done for the last 5 years. She was completely oblivious that she was being paid it, as was her family (the husband also receives PIP and they thought the payments were for him). She can’t read English and they had misunderstood the award letter (which they still had). Rather than just tell her that she already had a claim in payment, somebody took the decision to instead to make up a shaggy dog story that got my client’s family hot under the collar and had me chasing ghosts. The note that they recorded about it then snowballed things with the second helpline agent and an irate family. The rest is just history.
Ho-hum.
Hi - if you DM/email me the client details I can escalate via stakeholder forum - this sounds really weird!
Sorry Daphne, thanks for the offer. I didn’t mean to ignore you, I just missed this.
This is why I harp on about asking the amount of benefit clients get, rather than what benefits. Can’t really blame them for being confused in the jungle of benefits that is the UK system.