Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
Reasons we need Implicit Consent or Signed Consent in Full Service
forum member
Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council
Total Posts: 1981
Joined: 12 October 2012
We are helping a claimant who has serious health problems and who has had great problems communicating without support.
There are numerous UC issues; we are already his reps for an appeal. I have been emailing UC back and forth about the appeal, about conditionality and other matters.
Payment problems came up – UC refuse to speak to me about it without specific, new authorisation.
They wrote to me to say so and provided the attached form – has anyone seen this before????
Select moments from my response (I’m annoyed, you may gather):
[T]his matter shows the current and entirely unsatisfactory nature of authorisation and UC.
This is a classic case in which the UC authorisation policy helps nobody: it hampers efforts by any third party to help the claimant, and excludes advice agencies from rendering effective assistance and it causes massive delay where prompt action is required.
This in turn further isolates a claimant who is in need of help and support and the policy acts directly against both his wishes and his interests.
It is interesting that a form exists: we have asked DWP repeatedly what form of words is acceptable and have never received a reply. The existence of this form has never previously been flagged up.
The form itself may be a little bit helpful but it embodies the shortcomings of current policy: it is both difficult to fill in for a claimant and narrow in its remit, and it excludes the third party from discussing linked but relevant issues.
I have no problems with our standard Authorisations becoming more specifically worded, especially with the changes coming up at the end of this month, but as things stand DWP policy is acting directly against the interests of the most vulnerable claimants.
The removal of implicit consent is also an act against the interests of the claimant. Urgent action is sometimes needed, often for someone who cannot provide the kind of detailed and frankly confusing authorisation that is now required.
In whose interests is it to refuse to deal with a known advice agency (which is not taking up the case for casual amusement but because help is needed urgently) and to leave the claimant isolated?
If separate, short-term authorisations are required every time, this matter will choke on red tape… I would like a full response to my query, and for the UC policy people to think again about the obstructive policy that is currently in place.
File Attachments
- UC_Authorisation_form.pdf (File Size: 55KB - Downloads: 2642)
forum member
Weymouth & Portland Citizens Advice
Total Posts: 123
Joined: 2 January 2018
I discussed this matter with Jobcentre staff last week. No mention was made of this form. The Business Development Manager linked me to the guidance on GOV.UK (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-credit-detailed-information-for-claimants/universal-credit-consent-and-disclosure-of-information) and the work coach line manager printed out the following for me from the DWP Intranet:
“For consent to be lawful the claimant must state:
- that they give consent for their personal information to be disclosed
- what information they want to be disclosed
- why the information is needed
- the relationship to the claimant where the representative is a family member or friend
- the name of the representative and the organisation, including the branch where applicable. If the claimant cannot provide the name of the representative, they need to be as specific as possible, for example the representative’s job role or team name within the organisation.”
Interestingly the reason we got into this discussion was confusion over what exactly this guidance required. A work coach said that he could not speak to me because a message posted to a client’s journal (which met all the above requirements except why the information is needed) did not tally with how he “understood” explicit consent. He eventually agreed to speak to me after consulting the line manager, who gave me the above guidance for future reference.
I agree that having a special form seems overkill, but honestly everything about explicit consent seems like overkill and at least it is a standard wording that should be accepted by all work coaches. I’d be happy (or at least would use in preference to journal messages) if there was a consistent way of submitting it. How does it work when discussing things over the phone? There’s no capability to upload attachments to the journal so the form will be entirely useless unless you can physically hand a copy to whoever you’re speaking to.
forum member
Leorn Welfare Rights Training Services, Derby
Total Posts: 78
Joined: 8 April 2011
Interesting doc, in part B. It asks for name or MP, but MPs still have implicit consent so this form is wrong.
Early days, but second reading of the Universal Credit (Application, Advice and Assistance) Bill is scheduled for today - includes proposed provisions covereing implicit consent for MPs and ...
4(2) The Secretary of State shall by regulations made by statutory instrument provide other relevant individuals or advisory bodies with implicit consent to provide assistance on behalf of claimants of universal credit.
stuart - 11 May 2018 02:01 PMEarly days, but second reading of the Universal Credit (Application, Advice and Assistance) Bill is scheduled for today - includes proposed provisions covereing implicit consent for MPs and ...
4(2) The Secretary of State shall by regulations made by statutory instrument provide other relevant individuals or advisory bodies with implicit consent to provide assistance on behalf of claimants of universal credit.
MPs objected to giving the Bill its second reading without debate last week. New date has been set for 23 November 2018.
forum member
Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council
Total Posts: 1981
Joined: 12 October 2012
I now have a case in which we are reps for appeals for both PIP and ESA, with full signed authorisation.
Client has been forced on to full service UC (found ffw on ESA, then GP gave him a sick note for more than 3 months)
He has no computer skills and his behaviour, driven by mental health problems, is such that he has been refused assistance by local agencies; he cannot put anything online nor can he log on. He relies on ad-hoc help from Jobcentre staff.
I emailed DWP showing that we were full signed-up reps for ESA and PIP, explained that he cannot do anything online, that he has been refused help owing to his problems, and asking what DWP can do to offer support.
Response - DWP acknowledges that we have authorisation for ESA and PIP but as there is no UC authorisation they will not speak to me.
This is just absurd. This policy is directly harmful to the interests and possibly to the health of claimants.
forum member
Nestor Financial Group Ltd
Total Posts: 493
Joined: 20 January 2016
Andrew Dutton - 15 May 2018 09:29 AMThis is just absurd. This policy is directly harmful to the interests and possibly to the health of claimants.
Isn’t that the point.
forum member
Citizens Advice Bridport & District
Total Posts: 1072
Joined: 9 January 2017
Andrew Dutton - 15 May 2018 09:29 AMI now have a case in which we are reps for appeals for both PIP and ESA, with full signed authorisation.
Client has been forced on to full service UC (found ffw on ESA, then GP gave him a sick note for more than 3 months)
He has no computer skills and his behaviour, driven by mental health problems, is such that he has been refused assistance by local agencies; he cannot put anything online nor can he log on. He relies on ad-hoc help from Jobcentre staff.
I emailed DWP showing that we were full signed-up reps for ESA and PIP, explained that he cannot do anything online, that he has been refused help owing to his problems, and asking what DWP can do to offer support.
Response - DWP acknowledges that we have authorisation for ESA and PIP but as there is no UC authorisation they will not speak to me.
This is just absurd. This policy is directly harmful to the interests and possibly to the health of claimants.
Notwithstanding the substantive issues already raised.
Other issues regarding the DWP criteria for consent, include the assumption the client has the literacy levels to actually know what is happening regarding their claim, articulate those issues to us, or can access their journal.
‘Around 15 per cent, or 5.1 million adults in England, can be described as ‘functionally illiterate.’ They would not pass an English GCSE and have literacy levels at or below those expected of an 11-year-old. They can understand short straightforward texts on familiar topics accurately and independently, and obtain information from everyday sources, but reading information from unfamiliar sources, or on unfamiliar topics, could cause problems’.
https://literacytrust.org.uk/parents-and-families/adult-literacy/
shawn - 05 May 2018 11:39 AMSome posts from the DWP’s Neil Couling on Twitter after issue raised by Stella Creasy MP:
SC: ... they’ve written to every MP telling them they have to now get ‘explicit’ consent from constituents to raise queries, when parliamentary protocol is clear if someone contacts us we can help them ... [Link to tweet]
NC: Universal Credit:Written statement - HCWS528 - UK Parliament. MPs do not need constituent’s explicit consent to raise issues. See this written statement from 2017. @stellacreasy does this help resolve your query? https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2017-03-13/HCWS528/ [Link to tweet]
SC: HI @NeilCouling your staff team are telling my office we do need this - and why are you excluding the @CitizensAdvice staff from this when will create further backlog of queries for us? Have you trained your staff not to ask MPs for explicit consent as not our experience? [Link to tweet]
NC: Managing risks of wrongful disclosure and protection of claimant data have to be paramount. We can work a system of implicit consent because we have links with MPs offices. The advice sector is too numerous and too dispersed across the country to make a similar approach viable [Link to tweet]
NC: Will follow up with local jobcentre and get this right. For advice sector these special arrangements for MPs can’t safely be operated. Risks of wrongful disclosure of personal data too great. Have written to sector to explain, happy to share that correspondence if desired. [Link to tweet]
NC: Here’s my letter to the advice sector about explicit consent. It ought not to be too onerous a requirement and protects claimants from criminals posing as advisers to harvest personal details @stellacreasy https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/UCFS_Welfare_Advisers_20_Jan_2017_rightsnet_upload.pdf [Link to tweet]
More from Neil Couling on Twitter:
.... Advice organisations do [need explicit consent] but getting a note in the journal can be done in seconds. I know some don’t like it but it is the best way to protect claimants’ data.
https://twitter.com/NeilCouling/status/994935044253896704
.... the threat of criminals posing as advice workers being able to harvest data, identity theft, redirecting payments to their accounts, is too great. So I hope your local advice folk come to accept this change which ensures that together we can protect claimants.
https://twitter.com/NeilCouling/status/995019284043780096
forum member
Welfare rights officer - Enable Scotland
Total Posts: 879
Joined: 22 August 2013
which is all of course nonsense as to get access to the claim under implicit consent we had to already have all the relevant personal information and wouldn’t ask nor expect to be given things like bank details.
what fraud could I commit I couldn’t do before the call now that I know what elements the person has, why they got sanctioned or what their assessment period date is?
forum member
Solicitor, SC Law, Harrow
Total Posts: 1221
Joined: 13 April 2016
and still takes no account of those without capacity etc….
forum member
Benefits adviser - Isle of Wight CAB
Total Posts: 512
Joined: 4 March 2011
- the name of the representative and the organisation, including the branch where applicable. If the claimant cannot provide the name of the representative, they need to be as specific as possible, for example the representative’s job role or team name within the organisation.”
Presumably though the representative could be a limited company.
forum member
WRAMAS, Bristol City Council
Total Posts: 240
Joined: 24 August 2017
So presumably the way to resolve UC issues and get around implicit consent would be to send all our clients to their MP - they’ll soon get the message.
Joking aside, we have been informed that there will be a “partner portal” sometime in November akin to the current landlords’ portal, which will allow partner organisations such as advice agencies to have restricted access to clients’ UC claims. Again, baited breath ensues!
From Neil Couling on Twitter [17 May 2018]:
Q?: Are you ensuring that UC staff are aware that explicit consent can be given via the journal? The ongoing thread here seems to show that it is still being rejected by staff ...
A: ... thanks for the heads up. For Andrew Dutton on the thread this is not an official form and does not need to be used with Universal Credit Full Service. We will speak to the local offices to remind people a simple note in the journal will suffice. & Thx Rightsnet
https://twitter.com/NeilCouling/status/997162628798664706
forum member
Welfare Rights Service, Greenwich Council, London
Total Posts: 211
Joined: 8 August 2012
Today’s NAO report on UC includes a mention of implicit consent:
“2.30 The Department’s decision to make claimants responsible for their own claim
has made it difficult for providers to support claimants. The Department removed
‘implicit consent’, which allowed external bodies to act on a claimant’s behalf without
the need for written authority or the claimant being present.14 We spoke to a range of
such providers who explained that while they understood the Department’s rationale
for this it hindered, and increased the burden on, external bodies that provide support
to claimants. For example, while the Department allows some advocacy, it is on a
short-term basis (one assessment period) only. Claimants must renew their consent
monthly to allow advocacy to continue on their behalf. “
They make the following recommendation:
“Make it easier for third parties to support claimants. This might include:
• extending the concept of the landlord portal to simplify verification processes
(for example, for childcare costs);
• sharing, with the claimant’s consent, appropriate information with third
parties, such as information on additional support requirements;
• allowing the bulk upload and download of information helpful to the
support of claimants, such as changes in rent; and
• allowing those supporting claimants access to a version of the journal
through which they can view appropriate shared information and
communicate with the Department.”
forum member
Citizens Advice Bridport & District
Total Posts: 1072
Joined: 9 January 2017
Owen Stevens - 15 June 2018 10:07 AMToday’s NAO report on UC includes a mention of implicit consent:
“2.30 The Department’s decision to make claimants responsible for their own claim
has made it difficult for providers to support claimants. The Department removed
‘implicit consent’, which allowed external bodies to act on a claimant’s behalf without
the need for written authority or the claimant being present.14 We spoke to a range of
such providers who explained that while they understood the Department’s rationale
for this it hindered, and increased the burden on, external bodies that provide support
to claimants. For example, while the Department allows some advocacy, it is on a
short-term basis (one assessment period) only. Claimants must renew their consent
monthly to allow advocacy to continue on their behalf. “They make the following recommendation:
“Make it easier for third parties to support claimants. This might include:
• extending the concept of the landlord portal to simplify verification processes
(for example, for childcare costs);
• sharing, with the claimant’s consent, appropriate information with third
parties, such as information on additional support requirements;
• allowing the bulk upload and download of information helpful to the
support of claimants, such as changes in rent; and
• allowing those supporting claimants access to a version of the journal
through which they can view appropriate shared information and
communicate with the Department.”
Thanks for posting this Owen, really useful, adding weight to the argument re changes to the journal etc etc!
Income Max - 09 May 2018 10:42 AMI discussed this matter with Jobcentre staff last week. No mention was made of this form. The Business Development Manager linked me to the guidance on GOV.UK (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-credit-detailed-information-for-claimants/universal-credit-consent-and-disclosure-of-information)
Apologies, Income Max, you may find this link more useful https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-credit-universal-support-201819-guidance/universal-support-201819-guidance#sharing-information-and-data-protection
There is a huge concern with implicit consent especially with claimants who are not digitally literate - specifically it encourages people who are not digitally savvy to share their log in and password with anyone, including those posing to be an adviser. Any solution to this would have to keep this potential privacy and security breach in mind.
Under these rules, the explicit consent lasts until either the specific request is completed or the end of the assessment period, after the one in which the consent was given (basically, minimum one month, maximum 1.99months).
To give consent, client must:
•outline what information is to be disclosed
•explain why the information is needed
•explain the representative’s relationship where the representative is your family member or friend
•give the name of the representative and the organisation, including the branch where applicable. If name cannot be provided, should provide the representative’s job role or team name within the organisation.
The representative then needs to provide:
•the claimant’s full name
•the claimant’s address or date of birth
•what information you have agreed to share
•the purpose for the information being shared
•their name or the organisation they belong to (where this applies)
Consent can be given and withdrawn over journal.
Also,
Funded AD (assisted digital) support may not be appropriate to provide digital support when the claimant does not have the digital capability and cannot and may never be able to self-serve online even with US/ in-depth digital training – claimants should be directed to the Universal Credit helpline who will provide the appropriate support.
[ Edited: 15 Jun 2018 at 10:52 am by MKM35 ]
forum member
Welfare Rights Service, Greenwich Council, London
Total Posts: 211
Joined: 8 August 2012
A blog by Devan Ghelani, an architect of Universal Credit, touches on the implicit consent debate: http://policyinpractice.co.uk/four-practical-steps-the-dwp-can-take-today-to-improve-universal-credit/
[ Edited: 18 Jun 2018 at 11:30 am by GWRS adviser ]This Panglossian blog reads a bit like Russia Today’s accounts of events in Russia
forum member
Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council
Total Posts: 1981
Joined: 12 October 2012
I am still being blocked fom discussing UC in cases where DWP knows fine well we are reps for other benefits and the claimant is not able to provide what DWP wants.
All I get is reiteration of the same line - the demand for explicit, detailed, time-limited consent.
Surely this DWP policy works for the convenience of the Dept and not claimants, and takes all choice AWAY from the claimant? Isn’t that the opposite of the ‘responsibility’ agenda DWP keeps on puffing?
Indeed, in at least one case I have the policy is exacerbating the suffering of the claimant.
What about a court challenge under the Equalities Act?
forum member
Welfare rights worker - Oxford Community Work Agency
Total Posts: 1659
Joined: 18 June 2010
I didn’t receive any response to my post here: https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/12784/ re the legal basis (or otherwise) for ‘explicit consent’ under DPA.
forum member
Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council
Total Posts: 1981
Joined: 12 October 2012
The latest one I have is a refusal to give information because the claimant’s authorisation is out of date.
Authorisation given in December 2018.
Email query sent January 2018.
No reply to this or to followup emails until a few days ago, when….DWP refused to give the information because the claimant’s authorisation is ‘out of date’.
They also denied receiving a letter from me. A copy of which is in the UC appeal papers for this claimant.
I’m getting cross again…..
[ Edited: 2 Aug 2018 at 03:02 pm by Andrew Dutton ]forum member
Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council
Total Posts: 1981
Joined: 12 October 2012
We continue to encounter problems - in my humble (but noisy) opinion, the ‘explcit consent’ policy has caused the cases of vulnerable claimants to drag on for unreasonable amounts of time and has prevented them getting timely help.
Are advisers in other areas still finding this to be the case?
forum member
Welfare officer - St Christopher's Hospice, SE London
Total Posts: 110
Joined: 16 June 2010
‘There is a huge concern with implicit consent especially with claimants who are not digitally literate - specifically it encourages people who are not digitally savvy to share their log in and password with anyone, including those posing to be an adviser. Any solution to this would have to keep this potential privacy and security breach in mind.’
From one of the policy documents above.
As I see it - it is the lack of implicit consent that most encourages claimants to share their access details with anyone helping them with the claim. Those who fail to understand journal entries or in some cases are not literate enough to write the explicit consent notice are all too keen to pass the details over.
forum member
Citizens Advice Bridport & District
Total Posts: 1072
Joined: 9 January 2017
ASH - 24 July 2018 05:15 PM‘There is a huge concern with implicit consent especially with claimants who are not digitally literate - specifically it encourages people who are not digitally savvy to share their log in and password with anyone, including those posing to be an adviser. Any solution to this would have to keep this potential privacy and security breach in mind.’
From one of the policy documents above.
As I see it - it is the lack of implicit consent that most encourages claimants to share their access details with anyone helping them with the claim. Those who fail to understand journal entries or in some cases are not literate enough to write the explicit consent notice are all too keen to pass the details over.
Absolutely!
There is also the issue of growing numbers of people that for whatever reason (we can’t be alone in seeing), needing help with getting new passwords and usernames because , compounding the above problems.
forum member
Welfare Rights Service, Greenwich Council, London
Total Posts: 211
Joined: 8 August 2012
There seems to be an updated version of internal guidance in the deposited papers: http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2018-0759/Consent__disclosure_v10.0.pdf
Owen Stevens - 02 August 2018 02:23 PMThere seems to be an updated version of internal guidance in the deposited papers: http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2018-0759/Consent__disclosure_v10.0.pdf
https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/13205/ ;)
forum member
Welfare rights service - Derbyshire County Council
Total Posts: 1981
Joined: 12 October 2012
Here’s an interesting update on the UC authorisation matter.
Client has provided online authorisation with specific issues highlighted, but DWP’s response to an email query from our office is this:
‘You have asked for information pertaining to secure personal data concerning [this] claim. All of this information is fully available to [the claimant] to freely share with you should they wish to do so, via their journal account. Although authority has been placed onto [the] UC account, it does not permit me to disclose personal information that, the customer can share themselves, unless specifically directed to. A blanket, nonspecific authority could result in a DWP committing a data breach under GDPR 2018.’
I have pointed out to DWP that we are not by and large a face to face service and we can’t sit down with people and look at their online account. Many claimants live many miles away from our offices. Many claimants lack the skills or IT equipment to screen-grab/cut and paste and send information to us.
The claimant in this case has authorised the action and yet still DWP looks for a reason to refuse.
I’ve also pointed out that I’m not in it for the laughs, and wouldn’t ask for the information if it wasn’t needed. DWP’s approach is simply cutting vulnerable claimants off from third-party advice. DWP is not acting in claimant’s interests, but in its own.
forum member
Citizens Advice Bridport & District
Total Posts: 1072
Joined: 9 January 2017
Attached letter from Esther McVey regarding consent.
File Attachments
- UC_explicit_consent_-_response_from_Esther_McVey_Sept_2018.pdf (File Size: 32KB - Downloads: 2439)
forum member
Benefits adviser - Isle of Wight CAB
Total Posts: 512
Joined: 4 March 2011
They still only seem to be capable of looking at it in terms of accessing client’s data, rather than making pertinent challenges and representations, possibly to the data the DWP hold. As if we’re just nosy for the sake of it.