Dave wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2010 at 10:39am:



Thanks for the welcome, I will be writing my MP, but I've the feeling he won't be for much longer. The DWP have closed the local office in my area, we are now served by one centralized Jobcentre Plus office which is miles away. From there you can call any department free of charge using an internal phone, you're given a ticket number and then queue up to use the phone, if you close your eyes it's just like being in Argos.  My problem is getting to that office after suffering a stroke last November isn't easy, my only recourse at the moment is to use my mobile phone. I fully expect things to get worse this year, when more cuts in public spending are imminent thanks to the banking catastrophe.

When I called Jobcentre plus (Stratford, London) a few hours ago, at no time did the switchboard operator offer to call me back, he just furnished an 0845 number, calling that number gives you approx a 1 min recorded message followed by a waiting period to actually get through to a person. That waiting period can be any length of time depending on how busy they are, and how quickly they pick up, so in practice by the time your connected to a person to request a call back you will have already spent a considerable sum of money. Call back is scam, they need to to give people surviving on Income support, or a state pension, or incapacity benefits, an 0800 freephone number to call.

k2150 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2010 at 11:31am:

Perhaps you could hold off until after the election. 


k2150 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2010 at 11:31am:

For your information, the 020 7301 8200 number for Stratford and quite a few other London JobCentres is to be turned off on the 14 April.

What 0845 number is it that you were directed to?

I ask because if the 0845 number you should have called was answered anywhere else than your local JobCentre, then that would explain the reason that they could not offer you a call back on the 020 number even if they were permitted to do so. In order for them to do that, the message would have to conveyed to whatever call centre deals with the type of enquiry you were ringing about, and I don't believe that there is such a mechanism in place.

The idea of call backs sounds good in theory (at least as a temporary fix), but as you say, there is the unacceptable cost of the call whilst you are waiting in a queue, for which you have no idea how long it will be. I imagine that waiting creates tension caused by the fact that your credit could run out, and that this in turn would leave you unable to contact anyone until you top-up again.

k2150 wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2010 at 12:08am:
A quick review of the DWP and JobCentre Plus websites does not find any reference to a Social Fund Dept. The "Social Fund" appears to be the name given to a group of benefits, some of which are budgeted for in a particular way. Each Job Centre Plus office appears to be able to deal with enquiries. The central 0800 number appears to deal with new claims.

The fact that the system is potentially very confusing is a further reason why expensive telephone numbers are inappropriate. The incompetence of staff who suggest contacting a non-existent "department" is another sadly familiar issue. Whilst there is no policy of automatically offering a call back on geographic numbers, the Stratford switchboard should have put the call through to the appropriate person within that office, who should then have responded to a request for them to call back.

Any call that is handled wrongly is unnecessarily expensive, whatever type of number is used.

I do not think that there was anything in the original version of the comments about a company known as Balfour Cheaty that it not repeated all over the web regularly.

The specific example does however demonstrate a syndrome seen through both the previous and current governments.

Devolving decision making to local bodies and contractors encourages a pragmatic approach. This may have its benefits, but it makes adherence to important points of principle extremely difficult to maintain and enforce. If the easiest and cheapest way of delivering a service is by getting users to pay for it, and nobody complains loudly enough before the event, then this is what will happen.

Once it is done, what is then seen as being added cost, plus the trouble and expense of change, mitigate against necessary corrective action being taken.

---

With reference to the DWP (and HMRC and others), I have noted, and commented on, the following item from the Sunday Mirror -

---

As this forum is structured for discussion rather than news postings, I am never sure whether members in general are interested in such bland contributions as that immediately above, or if each should have a new thread in the expectation of stimulating a debate.

Those who may wish to follow developments on campaigns that I am engaged in may wish to subscribe to news feeds that I maintain. If any item, such as that referred to above, is considered worthy of discussion, then it could be brought into this forum. I believe that members in general should decide what it is that they wish to discuss in the forum. (I am well aware that there are many who do not wish to see contributions from myself.)

In addition to those which are general to my campaigning efforts, I now also offer feeds on specific topics. The feeds may be viewed and subscribed to at this link.

N.B. There is no cost involved, "subscription" is free of any charge. Furthermore, there is no monetary gain for me from my feeds or my blogs.

I would be delighted to hear from anyone who has suggestions about the presentation, wishes to propose items for inclusion (current or historic) or wishes to invite me to subscribe to their feeds of related material.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 29^th, 2010 at 7:08pm:


I have just googled the term "Balfour Cheaty" (in parenthesis) and this is the only page that was returned from the entire web.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 29^th, 2010 at 7:08pm:


Some people are quick to forget that the current problems in our country were instigated by the tories of the 1980's (unstable employment, over inflated housing market, tax rip offs such as increasing VAT from 7.5% to 17.5%, ignorance and indifference to the youth of the nation) The last and current governments are peas from the same pod.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 29^th, 2010 at 7:08pm:


It is often difficult to complain before the event as very little information is typically divulged. Usually it is dressed up to make it look like the government are doing us a favour so many people are not aware of the potential problems until they are hit by them.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 29^th, 2010 at 7:08pm:


Solution - revert back to the original system. Cost - Nil.

Members may be interested to read the recent FOI responses from DWP which I posted about on the thread in the FOI section of the forum.

Dave wrote on Jun 24^th, 2011 at 10:27pm:

Readers may be interested to note the annotation added to the published answer. This includes a link to the additional information provided.


The information deposited in the House of Commons Library includes an "Analysis" suggesting that nearly 50% of landlline callers would be worse off if DWP switched to 03. This is based on the assumption that all DWP claimants are just as likely as anyone else not to be at home during the working day and so are unlikely to subscribe to BT Unlimited Anytime. It also assumes that no DWP claimant callers subscribe to "BT Basic", even though only DWP claimants qualify for this special tariff!

If one considers the population who are in receipt of DWP benefits (including all old age pensioners, the long term sick and the unemployed) it seems a little foolish to assume that they would be no more likely to choose a tariff designed for those who use the phone during the day than anyone else.

Assuming that NO DWP callers subscribe to BT Basic, when all BT Basic subscribers must be DWP claimants, and when the premium charge they incur for calling 0845 numbers is that given in the written answer, thereby implying that this tariff is representative of the situation for ALL callers, goes beyond foolish!

(BT Basic is a "social tariff" available to DWP claimants who make very few calls, with an allowance of calls included in the monthly charge for the service. Calls to 0845 numbers are excluded from this allowance!)


The assumption that BT's diminishing share of the market in landline calls is 52.1% reflects the position as it was around the middle of 2007 (although this precise figure is not found in the relevant Ofcom publication). The latest published BT share is 39.9%.

The fact that some callers may be worse off by calling 03 rather than 0845 numbers is due to them probably having selected the wrong telephone package. Unless the call to DWP is a rare and exceptional example of a weekday daytime call, those who incur the BT penalty charge for calling outside the terms of their selected package are making a mistake. If one takes the DWP assumptions, but applies the up-to-date BT share of the calls market, those caught in this position only amount to 25% of DWP callers - significant, but far from overwhelming.

Use of a revenue sharing number without declaring a "service charge" is indefensible anyway, but to attempt to defend it on the basis that up to 25% of callers have chosen the wrong telephone package to meet their needs makes the position of the DWP even worse.


I share the hope expressed above, however a significant change of approach will be required before DWP can get a grip of what is really happening.

PONTYBOY wrote on Sep 16^th, 2011 at 9:40am:

Hello and welcome to SAYNOTO0870.COM.

Please can you tell me which Jobcentre this relates to and the full number so I can add it to the listings?