Notification of Customer Compliance Office Interview

[antone]

On a more serious note, I'm assuming that notes will be taken by the investigators erm I mean advisers. Does this mean I can request this transcript via a SAR?

 

To your earlier post, no, it wouldn't be available as an FOI request as it's personal information. You can request any notes made in a SAR, though.

 

My general point is that you can either treat this as a criminal investigation (which it is not) or you can treat it as a random compliance check (which it is.) The amount of stress involved is, to a large extent, up to you.

[UnmoderatetheNet]

The amount of stress involved is, to a large extent, up to you.

 

That's easy for you to say you're not at the pointy end of Iain Duncan Smiths ****ty stick.

[antone]

That's easy for you to say you're not at the pointy end of Iain Duncan Smiths ****ty stick.

 

How do you know that?

[tomtom256]

Sorry but is this thread a wind up?

[antone]

Sorry but is this thread a wind up?

 

Could be, but my default position is to take things seriously until I have a reason not to. Any thread could be a wind up.

[UnmoderatetheNet]

Well I've not been locked up you guys were right.

 

Interesting points I want to share.

 

They have 15 - 30 minute time slots and its amazing how easily they can get side tracked.

 

They have targets to achieve straight from the horses mouth as it were (obviously I got a particularity disgruntled employee, result).

 

Three benefits/bonuses per week, as the DWP don't like the word targets in the same way they don't like the word tax and prefer subsidy. That's right folks but don't just take my word for it. Its worth mentioning this is a performance bonus so think of it like a salesman not getting his three sales per week and looking for a job the following week.

 

Its a comfort knowing that the DWP are paying benefit hitmen to catch people out even going as far as to sanction someone who doesn't deserve it. Lets face it if you're sitting on two sanctions for the week and have done for the past month and some vulnerable claimant walks into your office and your are fearful of your own job. What are going to do?

[citizenkain]

this post is a bit pointless,suggest the op supplies information asked for if they want helping instead of just having a silly immature attitude.

[UnmoderatetheNet]

There is nothing silly and immature about cold hard facts. I think its very useful to know when you step into a DWP Customer Compliance Interview the person on the other side of the desk has a target of 3 claimants a week to refer for investigation 'under caution' or stop your benefit for x amount of weeks.

[antone]

There is nothing silly and immature about cold hard facts. I think its very useful to know when you step into a DWP Customer Compliance Interview the person on the other side of the desk has a target of 3 claimants a week to refer for investigation 'under caution' or stop your benefit for x amount of weeks.

 

These are not "cold hard facts". They are "warm soft unfacts".

[45002]

Could this thread be merged with this one http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?403554-Notification-of-Customer-Compliance-Office-Interview

 

!

[jabba jones]

They are "warm soft unfacts".

 

AKA Complete & utter b*****ks.

 

A Compliance officer has no say whatsoever on whether someone is interviewed under caution or not.

[antone]

Could this thread be merged with this one http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?403554-Notification-of-Customer-Compliance-Office-Interview

 

!

 

I did consider it, but would prefer not to create a black hole of ignorance. I'll see how it looks tomorrow.

[antone]

AKA Complete & utter b*****ks.

 

A Compliance officer has no say whatsoever on whether someone is interviewed under caution or not.

 

Well yes, but I'm an ST member, I can't say things like that.

 

Oh well, OK then. The idea that Compliance interviewers have targets to refer people for IUC is pure, unadulterated claptrap. Compliance officers do not refer people for IUC. It is not their job.

 

One of these days I think I'll write a guide titled "You may be suffering from DWP paranoia if...."

[UnmoderatetheNet]

AKA Complete & utter b*****ks.

 

A Compliance officer has no say whatsoever on whether someone is interviewed under caution or not.

 

Why would the man lie seriously ask yourself. Why?

We spent 15 minutes of a 15 minutes interview mostly discussing how crap the JSP is, why staff morale is at rock bottom, his colleagues being under huge departmental pressures, why they are leaving in droves. He talks about his own targets then holds four fingers in the air to gesture they don’t call them targets but still amounts to the same thing. Three a week. I have no reason to lie almost a 1000 posts on here mostly helping other people over five years on CAG.

The DWP CUSTOMER COMPLIANCE ADVISORS have targets get over it.

[UnmoderatetheNet]

Could this thread be merged with this one http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?403554-Notification-of-Customer-Compliance-Office-Interview

 

!

 

That's a very good idea I clicked on the wrong link. My bad

Thanks

[jabba jones]

He talks about his own targets then holds four fingers in the air to gesture they don’t call them targets but still amounts to the same thing. Three a week. I have no reason to lie almost a 1000 posts on here mostly helping other people over five years on CAG.

The DWP CUSTOMER COMPLIANCE ADVISORS have targets get over it.

 

He may have an unofficial target of cases that are referred to Fraud to take a look at, but that doesn't mean it will be investigated & certainly doesn't mean it will get as far as an IUC. There has to be evidence of a potentially prosecutable offence taking place for it to get to that stage.

 

Of course if it does get as far as an IUC then they were right to refer it to fraud, so what's the problem?

[UnmoderatetheNet]

unofficial target

 

Well I've never seen an unofficial target worry a man to the point I get it in the ear. I've seen plenty of official targets do that, but anyway I said what happened I shared my experience. There is nothing left for me to do.

 

Apart from I feel a FOI coming on. Who's guessing they don't answer the question?

 

Correct

[kk3852]

So what did the compliance officer want to speak to you about ? ?

[jabba jones]

Well I've never seen an unofficial target worry a man to the point I get it in the ear. I've seen plenty of official targets do that, but anyway I said what happened I shared my experience. There is nothing left for me to do.

 

Apart from I feel a FOI coming on. Who's guessing they don't answer the question?

 

Correct

 

I actually agree with most of what you claim you were told. However....

 

when you step into a DWP Customer Compliance Interview the person on the other side of the desk has a target of 3 claimants a week to refer for investigation 'under caution' or stop your benefit for x amount of weeks.

 

... the "under caution" part is the important bit & either you have misinterpreted what happens when a case is referred to fraud, or he doesn't understand what FIS do.

 

It never ceases to amaze me that many DWP staff don't even realise FIS & Compliance are different sections, but a Compliance officer should at least understand the basics!

 

This means that anyone invited for a Compliance interview reading this thread in the future could be unduly worried by incorrect information.

Edited October 1, 2013 by jabba jones

[antone]

So what did the compliance officer want to speak to you about ? ?

 

I suspect some mysteries will never be solved.

[kk3852]

I suspect some mysteries will never be solved.

 

Wish there was a "Like" button

[jabba jones]

I suspect some mysteries will never be solved.

 

I'm guessing the answer, should we receive it will contain some DWP "inepept losers" (sic) with a strong hint of chip on shoulderness.

[UnmoderatetheNet]

This means that anyone invited for a Compliance interview reading this thread in the future could be unduly worried by incorrect information.

 

No they really shouldn't and I admit I was. I now know a Compliance interview is either random but most likely 'we don't have evidence' and want you to hand us enough rope so we can hang you. Going into an interview with a care free abandonment is not the right attitude. If you are screwing the dole because you can't feed yourself then just be careful what you say. I do think its important to understand these government employee's are under targets regardless of what bull**** IDS and his mates tell you.

 

There have been plenty of leaked documents in the past and it would seem its business as usual. If you fancy working in JSP and you come from a target driven sales background you'll fit in quite well.

Edited October 1, 2013 by honeybee13

[antone]

No they really shouldn't and I admit I was. I now know a Compliance interview is either random but most likely 'we don't have evidence' and want you to hand us enough rope so we can hang you. Going into an interview with a care free abandonment is not the right attitude. If you are screwing the dole because you can't feed yourself then just be careful what you say. I do think its important to understand these government employee's are under targets regardless of what bull**** IDS and his mates tell you.

 

 

Nonsense. Claptrap. Poppycock.

 

Compliance interviews are not attempts to trap you and prosecute - it costs money to prosecute and they won't do it lightly.

 

And if you are "screwing the dole" (by which I presume you mean committing benefit fraud) for any reason, don't post about it here. Or rather, if you're in trouble for benefit fraud and need help, ask away. If what you want is advice as to how best to get away with benefit fraud, we're out. CAG wants no part of it.

[jabba jones]

If you are screwing the dole because you can't feed yourself then just be careful what you say.

 

Well duh!