Work and pensions minister Malcolm Wicks described the performance of some authorities as “downright awful” but praised the work of others.
There were wide variations in performance. Rother council in east Sussex processed new claims in eight days – the fastest in the country. The slowest council, Hart in Hampshire, took 162 days.
London boroughs Hackney, Brent and Lambeth, who have all dumped contractors and bought their benefits administration back in-house, all speeded up the processing of new claims between the first and second quarters of 2002/03 - but all three still took 100 days or more to process a new claim. Islington, which retained contractor ITNet, also lowered its processing time from 147 to 138 days across the three-month period.
There were also variations in the percentage of renewal claims paid on time. The worst performers were Dover and Moray who paid out three percent of renewed claims on time, whereas a number of boroughs including Croydon, Wick’s constituency, always paid out on time.
The national average time to process a new claim is now eight weeks – an improvement of four days between the first and second quarters of 2002/03.
Some councils did not submit data for the tables. Wicks said those with a genuine excuse, such as IT problems, would not be penalised. However he said: “If authorities are still not doing it, I would want to write to their chief executive and ask why.”
Wicks said councillors and residents should use the statistics to challenge the poor performance of their authorities.
He said: “The track record of authorities who take months and months to reply to people is a scandal and if we can embarrass some of those authorities then we will.”
He said there would be no new sanctions for poor performances but the department for work and pensions might intervene more frequently.
The publication of the statistics received a mixed reaction from the sector.
David Magor, director of the Institute of Ratings Revenues and Valuations, which represents benefits staff, said the tables could be a catalyst for the best authorities to help the worst. “Authorities who are at the bottom of the table are there because they need help from those at the top. We needed a facilitating mechanism so poor performing authorities can learn from those who are performing well.”
However Gwyneth Taylor, programme manager at the Local Government Association, warned that publishing the tables could lead to a “witch hunt” against the poor performing councils.
Source
Housing Today
No comments yet