PIP, DLA and AA
If this is your first visit, check out the community guide. You will have to Join us or Sign in before you can post.

CRB check on DWP

The_truthisout_thereThe_truthisout_there Member Posts: 29 Listener
Hello all
This may be of interest to some of you who have had a visit from a DWP employee who have come to your home and taken details from you.
I have an autistic son who has been on DLA. and is now at the age of 16 where he is now classed as an adult and has been asked if he want to claim PIP..
As he is autistic i have applied to be his appointee in dealing with his claim for PIP and i understand that they have to send someone out to verify this and take details (medical,bank details, etc etc)
The problems started when an employee from the DWP came to my house and i asked some questions.
One of the questions which i asked was "Have you had a criminal record background check" to which they replied "NO"
At that point i told them that i would not be giving them any personal details or bank details.
They said that they would see if they could get someone who had been checked to come and visit me.
That was in Mid February 
My sons DLA was stopped in april and when i enquired as to why it was stopped i was told that i had not been made an appointee and that i would not give the visiting officer the details required ie bank , medical etc etc .
I explained to a number of people whom i spoke to on the phone that i would not give out any details which could be passed on by persons who have not been checked in accordance with the DWPs own employment criteria which states That all DWP employees must have a CRB check prior to commencing employment.
They said that they would get someone to contact me to arrange a visit .
When they contacted me last week i was told that no one who carries out visits at that office 
has had a CRB check
so at this moment we are left in limbo waiting to see if they can find someone who has been checked.
it appears to me that some of the DWP staff have not had this CRB check and are visiting vulnerable adults and children and there could be a chance that if there is an unscrupulous employee of the DWP they could pass on your details to a third party where criminal activity could happen.
And in case anyone replies by saying that what i am saying is untrue.
I record all conversations which i have with the DWP and can prove what i have said.
dont tell me i cant record them , no one can tell me what i can or cant do in my own home.
If the police can use video footage and voice mails in criminal cases then i can use the same type of evidence when i have to prove what  a visiting officer has said or when i record telephone conversations with the DWP
I have asked the DWP for the following information under the Freedom of information act.
How many employees employed by the DWP have not had a CRB check
And how many of those who have not been checked carried out visits to people.
That was more than a month ago and i have not had a response from them since
except to acknowledge my initial request more than a month ago
It is now my intention to pass this on to the information commissioner for there investigation as to why i have not had a response to my FOI request.
When i have any more info i will post it on here
Thanks
 

Replies

  • GizmoTiddlesGizmoTiddles Member Posts: 129 Pioneering
    @The_truthisout_there very interesting 
    I also record all calls as my only contact with the outside world is via mobile phone or mobile data.all of which is cheaper than the "home phone and broadband" best deals 
    Good luck 
    Gizmo

  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,621 Disability Gamechanger

    Nowadays it's called D&B (Disclosure and Barring) and it's by no means clear that a clearance would be required before everyone gets excited.

    https://www.crb-checkonline.co.uk/who-needs-a-disclosure/

  • The_truthisout_thereThe_truthisout_there Member Posts: 29 Listener
    I have a statement from the DWP that stipulates that all employees from the DWP
    must have a CRB check when they accept a position within the DWP..
    and for the DWP it is called a BPSS check and not a (Disclosure and Barring)
  • YadnadYadnad Posts: 2,856 Member
    I am extremely shocked that the DWP are employing people without a background check being made. Obviously I don't expect all staff to have been cleared but I do expect those that carry out outside visits to have had one.
    The civil service seems to be going down the drain. I know that I am prehistoric, but when I was first accepted within the Inland Revenue years ago a full check had to be made as far back as your grandparents for criminal convictions, subversive political views, etc etc . You even had to apply for permission to visit a country that was considered to have Communist  tendencies and on return had to write up a report as to who you spoke to and what was said with a native of that country,
    Only then were you asked to swear on a Bible that you would adhere to the Official Secrets Act.

    Even now at 70 and because I am in school governor, I have to have an enhanced D&B check carried out every three years.
  • susan48susan48 Member Posts: 2,229 Disability Gamechanger
    I think anyone dealing with the public should have a disclosure done. Especially doing home visits.

    My experience of this is a bit confusing.

    Had a supervisory role in a bank - No disclosure required.
    Post person, sorting and delivering mail -Disclosure required.

    Seems like all different companies, businesses have different procedures.
  • whistleswhistles Member Posts: 1,590 Disability Gamechanger
    When I volunteered at a charity shop they required it.
    But I think I was talking to someone who said that's not asked for now. 
    So yes depends I guess.

    Am I the only one who wouldn't ask that question? 
    I had someone visit a few years ago as a check you are receiving the right money. I didn't ask. 
    Do not follow me, I don't know where I am going.
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,621 Disability Gamechanger
    I have a statement from the DWP that stipulates that all employees from the DWP
    must have a CRB check when they accept a position within the DWP..
    and for the DWP it is called a BPSS check and not a (Disclosure and Barring)
    Nope, that’s hopelessly incorrect. A BPSS check is for all civil service appointments and is largely about identity verification and security clearance. CRB checks have long since ceased to exist and were replaced by Disclosure and Barring checks. As part of the BPSS checks a D&B check can be undertaken to check for no more than unspent convictions. 

    Pages 6 and 22 of https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/677553/HMG_Baseline_Personnel_Security_Standard.pdf will confirm the above.

    If a specific role involves working with either children or vulnerable adults then the employer must also do a different level D&B check but that’s separate to the above. 

    Whilst it’s skirting around the edges of acceptability, an autistic young adult without an appointee must be assumed to have capacity until proven otherwise and couldn’t possibly be automatically assumed to be vulnerable. If they’re not vulnerable or a child then the position is clear. No D&B is required. It may well be the case that “No” was therefore absolutely the correct answer.

    I’m afraid for me this is classic web forum stuff. Person makes an assertion based on a half understood version of the law (CRB checks haven’t existed for 6 years now) and it feeds on the anxieties of others who then start posting their version of “facts”. Chinese whispers anyone? 

    As per my previous post, there is nothing to be excited about here at all. 
  • The_truthisout_thereThe_truthisout_there Member Posts: 29 Listener
    So i assume you know more than the DWP who sent me a statement confirming
    That all employees must have a BPSS check which includes a CRB check
    for me your comment is basic let me see if i can prove this person wrong  and i will try and shoot there statement down.
    But if i have it in writing from the DWP  office then it must be the standard they follow 
    tell me do you work for the DWP ??
    if you havent got the facts in front of you then you are the one making assertion and trying to stifle the truth
    I have the facts in front of me from the DWP .   DO YOU  ??
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,621 Disability Gamechanger
    So i assume you know more than the DWP who sent me a statement confirming
    That all employees must have a BPSS check which includes a CRB check
    for me your comment is basic let me see if i can prove this person wrong  and i will try and shoot there statement down.
    But if i have it in writing from the DWP  office then it must be the standard they follow 
    tell me do you work for the DWP ??
    if you havent got the facts in front of you then you are the one making assertion and trying to stifle the truth
    I have the facts in front of me from the DWP .   DO YOU  ??
    Kindly calm down and re-read my post and the link therein. Using capitals in posts is shouting and I’d appreciate it if you didn’t and just stuck to polite posting and actual facts. I’m not interested in proving any individual wrong or myself right but facts are objective and provable as per my links so when someone posts those facts unfortunately it does mean other posters will have regrettably posted inaccuracies albeit perhaps inadvertently. Which bit of my post and the civil service guidance do you specifically think was not factual? 

    If you have a letter from the DWP referring to CRB then the letter is either more than 6 years old or using terminology that is 6 years out of date. Either way it cannot therefore be anything other than at least 50% inaccurate. A read of https://www.ucheck.co.uk/change-from-crb-to-dbs/ will confirm this for you. It is an indisputable fact that CRB checks have not existed for 6 years. 

    You don’t have any facts in front of you. You have a badly worded and slightly misleading letter from the DWP. This is an organisation so familiar with the truth that they have never in their history achieved greater than 69% accuracy in their decision making (usually 66%). Their accounts have been qualified fo 20 consecutive years i.e. the National Audit Office do not believe they’re accurate. Speaks for itself really. 

    Loads of people on here have had zero points letter from the DWP re: ESA and/or PIP. A significant proportion will prove DWP wrong and qualify quite comfortably. So, yeah, the DWP... accurate to a fault. Never get anything wrong. 

    Can’t beiieve I’m even having to argue that point!

    It is accurate to say that all civil servants must have a BPSS and a D&B but the latter is for unspent convictions only. That is what my last post said and what their own guidance says. You can confirm that by reading the paragraphs I quote in that same post. The only obligation to do a further D&B is where the person works with vulnerable adults or with children. 
  • The_truthisout_thereThe_truthisout_there Member Posts: 29 Listener
    Whilst it’s skirting around the edges of acceptability, an autistic young adult without an appointee must be assumed to have capacity until proven otherwise and couldn’t possibly be automatically assumed to be vulnerable. If they’re not vulnerable or a child then the position is clear. No D&B is required. It may well be the case that “No” was therefore absolutely the correct answer.

    As this you adult was diagnosed at the age of 12 by professionals and was  currently receiving DLA up untill the age of 16 then the assumption must be that this is a vulnerable person and it does not change suddenly because they have reached the age of 16.

    As per my previous post, there is nothing to be excited about here at all.

    Nobody is asking anybody to get excited.
    Just ask the person who visits you if they have been CRB checked 
    if they say No then it is your choice if you decide to give them the details they ask for.
    A record is kept of all people who have had a BPSS check .


  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,621 Disability Gamechanger
    A diagnosis of autism is not a diagnosis of vulnerability. The definition of vulnerability is quite specific. DWP also have their own safeguarding and vulnerability guidance. So, no, a diagnosis aged 12 is meaningless in this context. An appointeeship would paint a different picture but only when in place. Then again, if someone has an appointee then they become the claimant so DWP would have no need to visit anyone bar the appointee and, once again, no high level D&B required.

    Absolutely no point in asking anyone of they’ve been CRB checked as per previous posts it was abolished 6 years ago and there is no universal requirement for a D&B check as over the link to the guidance I’ve posted above.

    Suggesting that there is is, in my view, unnecessary scaremongering. If the answer is “no” then people may believe there is something wrong when actually it’s most likely there is nothing wrong at all. 
  • The_truthisout_thereThe_truthisout_there Member Posts: 29 Listener
    The statement from the DWP is 35 days old and was sent to my local MP who was acting on my behalf.
    so that shoots down your theory that the information must be more than 6 years old
    Unless of course the DWP department is lying to an MP who will be bringing this up in the House of commons at my request.
  • The_truthisout_thereThe_truthisout_there Member Posts: 29 Listener
    You dont have the facts infront of you like i have
    all you assumptions and rhetoric are based on what you have read and how you interpreted it.
    we all know that not everything you read is true on the internet.
  • The_truthisout_thereThe_truthisout_there Member Posts: 29 Listener
    Just because the you say they are not vulnerable is your opinion.
    but in the eyes of the law yes they are vulnerable.
  • whistleswhistles Member Posts: 1,590 Disability Gamechanger
    I think the bottom line here is, until you are the appointee for them as an adult, they are not yet seen as vulnerable by PIP. You do not yet have a pip award.

    You asked that person to leave so you are the only one delaying the transition. You were present so what's the problem with giving them the info to make you into the appointee? 

    Pip does not take into account the fact they were on DLA. It's a new benefit you claim for. It doesn't have a crystal ball, you can ask for your previous DLA forms to be included as evidence, but it's possibly outdated and won't fit that criteria anyway.

    Do not follow me, I don't know where I am going.
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,621 Disability Gamechanger
    You’ve not actually read any of my posts fully or the links as far as I can tell. 

    1) Okay, it’s a recent letter. Big deal. DWP have just sent a letter to an MP referring to something which hasn’t existed for 6 years. Your inclination is therefore to believe the DWP must be right! You’re seriously arguing the DWP have to do a thing that can easily be shown to have not existed for 6 years. If you have evidence it still exists outside of your letter then please link to it. 

    2) You literally have no “facts” in front of you at all. It’s a letter. DWP write inaccurate letters all the time. Read the links. They’re not imaginary or made up. They are the actual thing you are referring to i.e. the policy that there has to be a BPSS but that it doesn’t always have to include a D&B and where it does include one it can be a basic one in most cases. Happy to cite the reference again. Page 22 onwards from the top of the page through paras. 34 to page 26 and para. 53.

    To clarify further this is a document produced by the Cabinet Office titled “Her Majesty’s Government Baseline Personnel Security Standard”. BPSS itself. It’s version 5 and was published in January 2018. If you can find a reference to a CRB check in there showing it still exists then I’m sure you’ll be happy to also post the page and paragraphs.  

    3) I can see no assumptions or rhetoric in any of my posts. I have made assertions and backed each one up with a specific reference. Each of those references can be cross checked and verified from other sources. I’m guessing you’ve not done that either. Much easier to go with “the internet is not always right”!

    4) I did not say the person was not vulnerable “in my opinion”. I said, very clearly and specifically that autism does not automatically equate to vulnerability. I said that because I also then said that the relevant definitions of vulnerability could be found in DWPs own guidance on safeguarding and vulnerability. So, not ”my” definition at all but theirs. 

    Could we by any chance be back to a specific poster who has been banned coming back in guise number three I ask myself?!
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,621 Disability Gamechanger
    @whistles absolutely spot on. Sorry, I didn’t refresh and see your post before I put mine up.
  • whistleswhistles Member Posts: 1,590 Disability Gamechanger
    You’ve not actually read any of my posts fully or the links as far as I can tell. 

    Could we by any chance be back to a specific poster who has been banned coming back in guise number three I ask myself?!
    My thinking here as well. 
    Why not just join as them and not make up stories.

    Do not follow me, I don't know where I am going.
  • The_truthisout_thereThe_truthisout_there Member Posts: 29 Listener
    The facts are the person was asking specific details about my son and wanted to see bank details etc
    under no circumstances did i ask them to leave .
    only that i would supply the necessary information to a person from the DWP who had been employed according to the DWP employment criteria.
    and as they are still finding it difficult to get someone out to me to take those details i think proves my point..
    as stated i go of the evidence and information supplied by the DWP not by someone who voices what they think is right.

    I think you protest to much
    You never answered my question  "do you work for the DWP " ?

    And as for a specific poster coming back in guise no 3
    I would not know who that was as this is the first time i have posted on here
    the site can check that out by my ip address and computer.
    The fact that someone post on here something which you do not like or agree with
    does not mean it is wrong or not factual.
    unless you have written evidence from the specific department mentioned as i have 
    Then all your post are speculation and your belief you are right and i am wrong
    But as stated in my initial post i will post further detail as and when i get them

  • The_truthisout_thereThe_truthisout_there Member Posts: 29 Listener
    You dont have to take my word for it ask the DWP yourself or get your MP to do it for you.
    I am sure you will get the same response and reply  as i did
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,621 Disability Gamechanger
    edited May 2018
    @The_truthisout_there. Your question was ignored. 10 minutes looking on this forum and you’d figure out who I work for and, no, it’s not and never has been the DWP. I deal with DWP every day of my working life and I’m more than familiar with every aspect of what they do; the relevant primary legislation; secondary legislation; case law and guidance. its my job to know this stuff and has been for more than 3 decades.

    I’m happy to go on record and say that what the DWP wrote to your MP appears to be inaccurate based on your description of it. I do not propose to repeat my earlier posts. They cover everything which needs to be said on the topic. I have cited sources for all my assertions including the very thing you say DWP have breached. People on this thread can read those links and judge for themselves. 
  • The_truthisout_thereThe_truthisout_there Member Posts: 29 Listener
    Or they can ask the DWP or  MP to ask for clarification on what checks are made on DWP  employees before they are allowed to work for the DWP..
    There should be no problem in people asking visiting officers if they have had a CRB check
    People can then judge for themselves.
    I dont doubt you are familiar with some aspects of what the DWP do
    but sometimes people cant see the woods for the tree because they are so involved .
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,621 Disability Gamechanger
    but sometimes people cant see the woods for the tree because they are so involved .
    Yeah, I strongly recommend everyone should ask their visiting officers about whether they’re been checked against something which hasn’t existed for 6 years. Let’s ask everybody to do that and see how long it takes for a VO to say “but that doesn’t exist”.

    Where’s the “roll eyes” emoji? 

    Your MP has been given duff info by the DWP. End of. 


  • The_truthisout_thereThe_truthisout_there Member Posts: 29 Listener
    Thats your opinion
    But i strongly doubt that duff information as you call it, would be passed on to an MP who can get further clarification from the DWP  secretary when he asks them.
    anyway only time will tell and as i said further info will be post on here as and when available
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,621 Disability Gamechanger
    It is a verifiable fact that CRB checks have not existed for 6 years. There is literally no element of that which is an opinion.

    Fair play though. Brilliant comedy that you're even attempting to argue that. 

    I very much doubt you'll be back on this at all. 
  • The_truthisout_thereThe_truthisout_there Member Posts: 29 Listener
    I have stated what i intend to do and i will follow it through to its conclusion
    you may not like that but thats the way its being dealt with.
    it is better that i dont continue this discussion with you  personally as we disagree
    but i will discuss this with others on this site.
    and as in the words of arnie in the terminator   i'll will be back
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,621 Disability Gamechanger
    Good luck. You may have noticed that not one person has challenged my assertion that CRB no longer exists. Wonder how long it'll be before the penny drops!
  • The_truthisout_thereThe_truthisout_there Member Posts: 29 Listener
    Thanks for you input
    Have a nice day 
  • RipplesRipples Member Posts: 189 Pioneering
    I have been fighting the temptation to comment on this thread so i will make my one and only contribution. it isn't hard to find out the legitimacy of what people are saying.
      https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/disclosure-and-barring-service    
  • The_truthisout_thereThe_truthisout_there Member Posts: 29 Listener
    Appreciate the input.
    as it states there is a criminal records check
    Thanks
  • YadnadYadnad Posts: 2,856 Member
    So i assume you know more than the DWP who sent me a statement confirming
    That all employees must have a BPSS check which includes a CRB check
    for me your comment is basic let me see if i can prove this person wrong  and i will try and shoot there statement down.
    But if i have it in writing from the DWP  office then it must be the standard they follow 
    tell me do you work for the DWP ??
    if you havent got the facts in front of you then you are the one making assertion and trying to stifle the truth
    I have the facts in front of me from the DWP .   DO YOU  ??

    The facts are as Mike has laid out. A CRB check is ancient history and was replaced by the D&B system to iron out a lot of the problems that existed with the CRB check.

    Personally I agree that any government officer that is likely to come up against someone that is vulnerable or a child should have an enhanced B&D check made at regular intervals. However civil servants are deemed trustworthy in any event so there may not be the need to go to these lengths.

    As a school governor I have to have one, yet as a town councillor it is deemed not necessary. I see more vulnerable children & adults on a one to one basis as a councillor than when I am in the school offices - work that one out.
  • The_truthisout_thereThe_truthisout_there Member Posts: 29 Listener
    My point was not to prove anybody right or wrong
    only to state that the DWP has stated to me that all employees have had a criminal records check before they take up there positions within the DWP.
    and as i have asked the visiting officer if they have had that check to which they replied "No " 
    My decision not to pass on personal and financial details is what i believe to be correct to avoid any potential fraud or improper conduct
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,621 Disability Gamechanger

    As already stated the person in question wouldn't have had a CRB check because they don't exist any more and wouldn't necessarily need a D&B check based on the law as it stands as weren't visiting a child or a vulnerable person. Links already posted to prove that. So, no, again, not my definitions or opinions. Just the law and guidance as is.

    Did you check on the qualifications of the person who checked the DLA form when you first applied? During the phone call to initiate the PIP claim, did you check that the person you were dealing with was entitled to note down your bank details?

    What on earth makes you think you're more vulnerable to fraud just because you were visited at home?

    In terms of a brilliant way of screwing your own claim though... way to go. Delay the appointeeship because of a delusional belief that someone should have been checked on something where they patently shouldn't.

    As I say, fantastic comedy but, in its own way, rather tragic, as you're making a great case in public for lacking the competence to be the appointee. Don't suppose that had occurred to you?

  • The_truthisout_thereThe_truthisout_there Member Posts: 29 Listener
    as stated previously i wont correspond with you on this matter any further
    enjoy the rest of your day
  • Sam_AlumniSam_Alumni Scope alumni Posts: 7,729 Disability Gamechanger
    Please remember that we want the community to be a safe and supportive place. Please make sure your messages respect other users’ views and suggestions, even if you don’t agree with them.

    Take care to present your views tactfully and remember that humour may be misinterpreted. 

    Scope
    Senior online community officer
  • The_truthisout_thereThe_truthisout_there Member Posts: 29 Listener
    Thank you for your message
    I dont believe i have been disrespectful to anyone in the community
    but i cant confirm that is the case for any other person in the community
  • whistleswhistles Member Posts: 1,590 Disability Gamechanger
    Op.
    I think you only have a certain amount of time before you application is actually closed.
    You didn't give your details to the visiting person- for whatever reason. 
    They will hopefully find you someone else, but you will also have an assessment to attend our visit.

    What I find bizarre is a new person can come to the forum, get a warning on their very first thread, and disagree with moderator as well.
    Regardless of right or wrong- the only person suffering here is your son.
    Do not follow me, I don't know where I am going.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,756 Listener
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • The_truthisout_thereThe_truthisout_there Member Posts: 29 Listener
    National Security Vetting (NSV) is designed to provide Departments with appropriate levels of assurance about all those employees/contractors who, in the course of their work, require access to sensitive Government information, or other important or valuable assets. The vetting process involves investigation of an individual's background and circumstances to identify anything that might lead them to commit a security breach.
    When recruited all permanent DWP staff and contractors are subject to a Baseline Personnel Security Standard Check (BPSS) which includes identity verification, a nationality & immigration check, employment history check, and a criminal record check. Only when this check has been successfully completed can staff be allowed access to protectively marked or other sensitive material. The BPSS checks take place after the interview and when the successful candidates accept a job offer.
    I hope it is of some comfort to you that all DWP staff are subject to a Baseline Personnel Security Standard Check which checks their background, including their criminal record which I noted you seemed particularly concerned about. I hope that this also addresses the concerns you have, but I do note that the DWP have offered for you to escalate your complaint further if you are unhappy with this response.

    Please do let us know if there is anything else we can do.


  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,756 Listener
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • The_truthisout_thereThe_truthisout_there Member Posts: 29 Listener
    Whistles 
    Thanks for your input
    Unfortunately i dont believe i disrespected anyone on here 
    i only disagreed with a person on there understanding with my understanding
    the fact that someone decided that was being disrespectful is beyond me.
    all that has achieved is that after i finish posting and updating this first post of mine i shall remove myself from this site
    censorship is fine but trying to stop genuine posts because a moderator disagrees with you is not my cup of tea
  • The_truthisout_thereThe_truthisout_there Member Posts: 29 Listener
    Victoriad
    Thank you for your input
    When i mean vulnerable i dont mean it in a physical sense although he is a very placid and complying person.
    If someone was to come to the door whilst we are not in and said they are from the DWP we need to have your bank card to put money into your account he would give them that card and his pin no
    The mere fact that he sees me challenging someone and asking them for proof of who they are and refusing to hand over details if they dont answer the questions correctly This is a learning experience for him and lets him know that he can challenge or question anyone or anything that he may not feel right about and also show him that there are unscrupulous people out there who will if the can take advantage of people if they are not careful when handing out personal or financial details
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,621 Disability Gamechanger
    whistles said:
    Op.
    I think you only have a certain amount of time before you application is actually closed...

    Regardless of right or wrong- the only person suffering here is your son.
    No time limit on sorting the appointeeship but they’ll eventually lose patience or worse still conclude he’s not an appropriate person to be an appointee. Acting in the best interests of the claimant and being able to understand information from DWP being but two aspects of that.

    As the PIP claim ground to a halt that may already be dead in the water. So, if you work forward from today then appointeeship would take probably a month if we’re being generous and then, if we’re being equally generous, a PIP award based on a new claim succeeding first time out without requiring an MR or an appeal is probably another three months at best after that. So, September payment at earliest but the loss of PIP from February to May because of a misguided obsession has already potentially cost his son a minimum of 12 weeks x £22.65 so £270 odd based on an award of standard rate of one component only. Every week of delay simply adds to that total. No doubt I’ll be told I am wholly incorrect and PIP can be backdated. An unpleasant surprise awaits.

    The text, presumably posted from the actual letter in question, clearly does not mention CRB, just “criminal records check” in lower case i.e. a D&B check as I stated from the off. As anyone can read from the link I posted, DWP have given a very generic answer which doesn’t address the fact there are types of check and the one for this is just spent convictions unless... well I’ve posted it all before. 

    The answer says that only when the check (BPSS, not D&B) has been successfully completed can staff be given access to “protectively marked or other sensitive material”. 

    As it happens, “protected” does include banking details when combined with one or more other identifiers like name or address but the legislation refers to being given access to something already marked as such, not being the person who collects it in the first place. 

    So, in summary, the check he’s concerned about is just one for spent convictions. The data seems unlikely to be “protected” as it hasn’t been collected, recorded and marked as such yet (largely because he’s not allowed them to). The person being visited is neither a child nor automatically vulnerable under DWP safeguarding and vulnerability guidance so no further restrictions on who can visit apply until, potentially, the appointeeship is in place. 

    Having picked a battle which cuts the nose off to spite the face one can only wonder how he’ll cope with a negative PIP decision.




  • YadnadYadnad Posts: 2,856 Member
    Having picked a battle which cuts the nose off to spite the face one can only wonder how he’ll cope with a negative PIP decision.

    Well Mike the way that this case is progressing - it would appear that a live claim doesn't even exist so any negative decision or in fact any decision maybe sometime never
  • GeoarkGeoark Member, Scope Volunteer Posts: 1,375 Disability Gamechanger
    So i assume you know more than the DWP who sent me a statement confirming
    That all employees must have a BPSS check which includes a CRB check
    for me your comment is basic let me see if i can prove this person wrong  and i will try and shoot there statement down.
    But if i have it in writing from the DWP  office then it must be the standard they follow 
    tell me do you work for the DWP ??
    if you havent got the facts in front of you then you are the one making assertion and trying to stifle the truth
    I have the facts in front of me from the DWP .   DO YOU  ??
    @The_truthisout_there as you seem to be having difficulty understanding why your posting may be considered disrespectful here is a good example.

    1) there was no need to assume whether the mikehughesqc knew more or not, he directly referenced the information which applied to all government departments and the armed forces.

    2) Again you have made another assumption that a criminal record check means a CRB check and again mikehughesqc gave a link which demonstrated that it would not be a CRB but DBS check, which again you ignored.

    3) A third assumption as to the motivation behind mikehugesqc post. He is actually one of the most respected members on this forum whose experience and knowledge has been a huge benefit to this community, and as usual was trying to help you.

    4) Demanding to know if a member works for the DWP to try and discredit them, despite having given a link that disproved your assertion.

    5) Actually in most of his posts mikehughesqc did have the facts in front of him and freely shared them with you. So no he has not been the one making assertions and trying to stifle the truth.

    Personally I have big issues with posters like you who make assertions with little or no proof,  one reason I have stayed out of this conversation until now. Your intention for the post was clear from the start and not knowing you I accept it was made in good faith. However it is based on information that is wrong and could result in problems for others if followed.

    To make things worse you have now changed what you said you originally asked the person which could cause more confusion for future readers.

    As an individual I stood alone.
    As a member of a group I did things.
    As part of a community I helped to create change!

  • The_truthisout_thereThe_truthisout_there Member Posts: 29 Listener
    as previously  stated  people can phone the DWP to confirm if all employees for the DWP have  to have a criminal record background check.
    and also as previously stated i will post any updates as and when more information on my progress happens
    I will not  be drawn into a confrontation  with anyone who post anything on this post and i am sure the site moderators or owners will remove any posts they seem as inappropriate .
    oter sites are available
  • whistleswhistles Member Posts: 1,590 Disability Gamechanger
    But why would we need to phone them and ask? Nobody appears to be that concerned about this accept you.

    Things have changed a bit, originally it was because you didn't want to give over personal info, then it was because your son is vulnerable, then it's a learning experience. If you are the appointee he will be protected from this kind of thing but also stopped from being independent.

    The dwp will decide whether he needs an appointee or not .Being  autistic doesn't necessarily mean he can't be allowed to deal with things without assistance, it's all individual.
    He is considered an adult. When you fill out the forms they will likely agree and disagree with things.
    Someone deals with important things on my behalf but they are not my appointee. 
    It's difficult on a forum because you haven't joined in anywhere else bar here.
    But are some of your concerns about the checks because you are delaying the fact that your son is an adult now, and you are struggling to let him grow up, venture into the world, be independent? 


    Do not follow me, I don't know where I am going.
  • The_truthisout_thereThe_truthisout_there Member Posts: 29 Listener
    I am not the one that keeps wanting to post there opinions on here
    as stated previously i wont be drawn into a confrontation irrespective of what is posted on here
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,621 Disability Gamechanger
    as previously  stated  people can phone the DWP to confirm if all employees for the DWP have  to have a criminal record background check.
    and also as previously stated i will post any updates as and when more information on my progress happens
    I will not  be drawn into a confrontation  with anyone who post anything on this post and i am sure the site moderators or owners will remove any posts they seem as inappropriate .
    oter sites are available
    Nope, actually you would have a hard time phoning the DWP over this as many DWP calls are outsourced to staff who do not work for DWP so they could not possibly have the answer. Call wait times often exceed 40 minutes depending who and when you call so let's hope callers have plenty of credit on their phones and can afford the wait and enjoy Vivaldi! Poor advice. 

    I don't know about anyone else but I am bored with posters who assert that what everyone else knows is "opinion" but what they know is "fact". If I post personal opinion I will say so. If I post facts then I am happy to cite references for all of them as I have done so on this thread. 

    The fact the OP has copied text from the DWP letter to their MP and still doesn't seem to appreciate what it's saying speaks for itself really. 


  • The_truthisout_thereThe_truthisout_there Member Posts: 29 Listener
    There is a free phone number   0800   121   4433
  • mikehughescqmikehughescq Member Posts: 6,621 Disability Gamechanger
    There is a free phone number   0800   121   4433
    That’s a number for complaint to Capita. Zilch to do with the DWP. 

    http://www.capita-pip.co.uk/en/complaints.html

    Even if it were you have failed to understand that at busy times calls to generic DWP numbers get rerouted and often to outsourced call centres. 

    A number of service providers also charge for dialling 0800 numbers from a mobile and most benefit claimants are on PAYG mobiles.


  • ricky1040ricky1040 Member Posts: 99 Pioneering
    I dont even know what to think here. I know this is important to you truth is out there. and you are probably to an extent right that there should be more checks. isnt this all going to effect your son more and the money he likely is entitled too. just from my personal experience life with benifets is tough enough. maybe consider parking this and get your son sorted and then persue it afterwards. Seems very important to you. But is it really worth it. More to life and all. 
  • The_truthisout_thereThe_truthisout_there Member Posts: 29 Listener
    I am not going to comment on anything else that any person post on here.
    as stated i will update this post as and when it progresses.
    If people want to add there own opinion thats fine
    if people want to try and shoot down everything i say thats fine
    if people want to try and deter others from finding out if what i am saying is true
    thats fine
    if people want to add 1 + 1 and come up with 3 thats fine
    but at the end of the day if my son is entitled to pip he will get it if he is not entitled to pip he wont get it.
    I will  do whats in the best interest of my son.

    And mikehugessq your following comment.

    As I say, fantastic comedy but, in its own way, rather tragic, as you're making a great case in public for lacking the competence to be the appointee. Don't suppose that had occurred to you?

    I am more than competent to deal with the DWP  but thanks for your concern anaway

Sign in or join us to comment.