Quote:


This question did arise and we were told that no face to face facility now exists-everything had to be done over the telephone.  Have not tested this but if I receive any further feedback will advise.  Perhaps scotitch will know as he is at the point of delivery and can provide this information?

redant wrote on Nov 15^th, 2008 at 11:23am:


We have been told to put ESA calls through to the jobcentre plus staff so i woulds imagine it is possible to come into your local jobcentre and get the form, I will check this tomorrow and let you know, Alll other new claims calls are done on a free phone number up here so i will also check if ESA has been added to this service.The part about picking up the form maybe difficult though as actually getting the forms has been another problem we have, as the supplier of our forms ion are a complete nightmare and the forms are constantly out of stock this is hopefully changing as they are moving to a direct print as you order system but as with all things DWP it could take a while.

Quote:


Contrast this with the billions of pounds our beloved government is spending on various bale-outs .......

I have sent this letter to seven different heads of Department in the DWP and the relevent employment departments. I think it is discusting when it can cost upwards of £1 to contact the JSA and that is from a landline, I dread to think what it is costing some of these people that ring on a mobile.

Can anything be done to put preasure on these departments to use the 03 range or even 0800 range. Can we start a campaign simular to the one with the doctors surgeries. I have sent the letter to the relevent haads of detpartment

I am contacting you today in regard to the contact costly numbers that JSA Benefit clients are forced to use when contacting either the DWP or Job Centre Plus.

At present I am in an unfortunate position that I am in receipt of JSA and to my horror I discovered that an 0845 number is used at the point of entry when requiring additional information. I do appreciate that there are other alternatives to make contact but they are not always convenient and in some cases clients are not able to put pen to paper. Because of the high volume of calls in some cases it has took me up to 30 minutes before I had the opportunity to talk to an advisor, this cost me a connection fee and an addition price per minute, in my view this is unacceptable

There are a large number of your clients that only have pay as you go mobile phones and the average call cost will be in excess of 0.20p per minute, I have been on a call for 30 minutes this cost me around 0.60p this is an unacceptable practice when there is an alternative 03 number range that are included in inclusive call packages. My research has also revealed that some clients have paid upwards of £3.00 when contacting the JSA Centre.

Suggested Solution - I propose that all numbers related to the JSA service should have an 03 number, the 03 number range has been allocated to public service bodies and they are included in all call packages. I propose that all services should be part of the 03 number range these numbers are for the purpose of public services to prevent telecommunication companies charging over the odds for specific services.

May I take this opportunity of thanking you for your time, I will look forward to your reply.

The instruction to call back to mobile callers to 0800 and 0845 numbers, referred to here, is now in the public domain.

See this video clip and the associated media release.

Dave wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2009 at 10:12pm:

MPs pursuing constituency casework get privileged access to ministers, government and other other public sector bodies as well as most private sector organisations. This is because of the job that they do as our elected representatives. The costs they incur in doing this work is claimable as an expense and would normally be claimed. An MP looking for work because they did not fancy their chances of being re-elected next year would not be able to avail themselves of this privilege for that purpose.

A call back is offered here as it is offered to any caller concerned about the cost of calling. As reported above it is now offered as a standard procedure to any caller from a mobile to a 0800 or 0845 number.

Jim Knight's explicit reference to a "geographic number" is made in awareness and to show recognition of the context of the question. DWP does now understand that there is a genuine issue here and has started on the long road to addressing it properly and finally. Unlike the Department of Health, it does acknowledge that there is an issue with 0845. Whilst many BT callers pay a reduced rate to call 0845 numbers, it will not be easy to resolve.

It remains a disgrace that so long after the introduction of 03 we are still talking about this, however things are at last moving, at the predictably slow pace.

I cannot see the hypocrisy referred to in the updated subject. I am not aware of any serious proposal that an MP's salary, personal wealth or private earnings should be used to cover expenses incurred in constituency casework, however this is what is implied by the quoted comment. If this proposal were to come into effect we would ask candidates to declare their outside earnings or wealth when they stand for election - not so that we could see if they would be sufficiently dedicated to the job, but so that we could elect whoever was rich enough to be able to offer a good service to their electors. As stated elsewhere, I strand firmly opposed to this this misapplication of the principles of consumerism, which even creeps into the relationship between the citizen and their MP.

Whilst SayNoTo0870 may wish to campaign for all MPs to have the personal wealth necessary not only to fund their casework, but as is also implied, to buy privileged access to ministers and officials, I must register my serious dissent from this campaign.

Barbara. To my reading, you make a very strong case for many other public representatives being required to take on a workload similar to that of the constituency casework of an MP. This would require them to dedicate themselves more fully to their official duties and therefore draw a salary and reimbursement of all valid expenses, e.g. for staff and offices, in place of the modest allowances that are available at present.

Some would see this professionalisation of politics at all levels as a good thing. In the present climate however one must assume that any such proposal would be ridiculed as being out of step with the public mood.

I see however that this is different from the view which you appear to hold. You appear to suggest that no elected representative should be able to have priviledged access to the executive or officials, and that they should all have to go through exactly the same processes as their constituents, in order to "concentrate their minds". I am indeed strongly opposed to this suggestion, although I recognise that this view is sincerely held.

I must however confess to being very disappointed by the reaction of members and increasingly frustrated by the misapplied consumerist nonsense.that is repeated here when discussing public services and even the foundations of our democracy.

JobCentre managers have geographic direct lines, whereas the JobCentre itself uses a 0845 number. The public purse therefore incurs a different charge when an MP calls a JobCentre Manager, to what a service user incurs when calling the Centre. That is the current position. The suggestion that those serving as Members of Parliament thereby benefit personally from some type of preferential treatment over that granted to others is quite absurd.

As a campaigner I have little interest in the way in which costs are transferred around between different sections of the Exchequer. i am concerned about use of 0845 numbers by DWP and others. The benefit of the revnue share to taxpayers and of low daytime rates for calling 0845 numbers by many BT customers do not for me offset the inequity caused to subscribers to other netwroks, who incur a premium charge when accessing public services.