Is telephone advice a real alternative?

[baldrick]

I had a client who had used a telephone legal advice supplier who received the fixed fee for a Benefit appeal. They appeared to do very little other than draw up an initial appeal, not gathering evidence, providing ongoing advice or providing a submission.

They simply gave a load of waffle on appeals and to get his own evidence in the care letter. The care letter I saw clearly made the point only contact if you require further specific advice, and that as far as they were concerned the case was finished.

They had no legal aid form signed as they posted it to the client which was not returned and did not have proof of income as the client had not returned it with the signedform.

It was clearly a fixed fee and the caseworker was experienced and embarrassed when I rung up and pointed out the case should include evidence gathering furtrher advice and if needed a submission. They stated they would not be doing any more work on it.

I later found out that some of these phone providers have a dispensation to provide legal advice for up to 2 hours without a signed legal aid form or proof of income. I could be wrong but I don't think so.

This is the future of legal aid with partial advice for a fixed fee and clients little better off or helped.

[sharnden]

The problem we have with any sort of phone providers is that our service users become paranoid when using the phone, therefore they will not use a phone.

[nickd]

Serving a large rural area in South Devon, we use the telephone as much as possible to save clients having to travel. However, it's very often the case that upon taking telephone instructions, the client would much prefer a face to face interview; they often ask for one.

I cannot see how cases like Incapacity Benefit, Disability Living Allowance, Employment & Support Allowance appeals or complicated overpayment cases can be satisfactorily conducted without seeing the client in person. For one, clients don't know the key documents we need to see (such as a chain of decision letters) and secondly, there are bundles of appeal submissions which need to be looked at, it's very expensive for the client to send them on. They also need to be gone through with the client.

There is absolutely no substitute for face to face advice. Tribunals tell people how their prospects of success are far higher if they see them in person, the healthcare professionals examine claimants in person to enable them to conduct an assessment, equally, we also need to see them to (1) help build trust with the client (2) to allow for easier exchange of documentation (3) to enable us to get a proper overview of the client's problems, both physical & mental.

Another dimension to clients with debt enquiries, is they are often reluctant to answer the phone. Most advice agencies have to conceal their phone numbers for confidentiality reasons, when a client sees 'number with-held' on their phone, they often assume it's another creditor ringing them morning, noon and midnight in an attempt to pester them into making a payment they can't afford. We try and get around this by maybe saying we'll call you on three successive quick rings, but it creates inordinate difficulty. Telephone advice is just not the right way to go with certain groups of clients, face to face advice is much more constructive.

[Patrick Torsney]

I think both telephone and face-to-face advice have a roll to play. They are, after all, alternatives and should wherever possible support each other in terms of allowing clients to access legal services

The proposals talk about using the CLA telephone services as a 'gateway' or a 'vetting' service. Basically, making a decision on where the client goes next (if anywhere), assuming they cannot deal with the problem over the 'phone. Given that telephone advice is considerably cheaper than face-to-face, you can appreciate the incentives for Government to want to push telephone advice as far as it can

An article in the Guardian Online 13th December 2010, by Jon Robins, includes:

There are issues however, particularly around certain groups of people and whether telephone advice would be both practical or possible for them. A recent survey by the Legal Action Group found that the unskilled and unemployed were twice as likely as others to seek help on benefits or debt problems. They were also the most reliant on local advice centres but least likely to use telephone helplines. Fewer than one in four of those respondents were prepared to get on the phone or use the internet to find advice

In response to the article, Professor Richard Moorhead said:

On the broader point, I agree there is a significant question mark over the capacity of telephone helplines to meet the needs of the most disadvantaged.

What was very interesting about this article was one of the responses, from someone who used to work in one of the CLA telephone advice centres. He or she said:

The organisation I work for was one of the original CLS contractors from the voluntary sector. Without exception the single access point worked well for educated empowered people who were able to take complex information in & utlize it in such as a way as to then effectively represent themselves to Tribunals, private banking organisations & the courts. Where people did not have the (generally middle class) ability to complain & stick to their guns & keep complaining untill the issue was dealt with.

Then the screws began to be turned on targets & funding per case. As a result of our organisational ethos we carried on providing the service we are well known for but it bcame less & less viable to do so on the real term costs.

Despite having met all the targets thrown at us the government decided to then take all the contracts away from third sector providers ( law society members having already been largely frozen out as uneconomical) the contract for our area (the west midlands) was given lock, stock and barrel to the then governments favourite private business CAPITA. This profit making organisation was giving debt advice to the nation whilst at the same time running the contract for (amongst other things) the collection of the congection charge and associated charges (apparently not a massive conflict of interest as they did not in fact, at any time offer any actual representation so at no point actually acted on a clients behalf.

To the best of our knowledge every case we had been acting on for the local community came back in through the doors for face to face assistance having been told they would not be assisted beyond fliers that can be downloaded directly from the .gov website. ALL benefits advice provided by the private sector involved posting out DWP booklets, printed at public expence, utilising postage paid for by the public. A veritable licence to print money with little or no care as to actual outcomes for clients.

You are right to be afraid.

The full Jon Robins article is here:

www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/dec/13/legal-aid-helpline

[sharnden]

Just to add,

To make benefit enquiries nowadays you have to phone a call centre, who will email the relevant processing team who then ring back 3 hours later.

try phoning the DWP today,

all their lines are busy and you cannot get to speak to anyone.

[nickd]

"I think both telephone and face-to-face advice have a roll to play. They are, after all, alternatives and should wherever possible support each other in terms of allowing clients to access legal services

The proposals talk about using the CLA telephone services as a 'gateway' or a 'vetting' service. Basically, making a decision on where the client goes next (if anywhere), assuming they cannot deal with the problem over the 'phone. Given that telephone advice is considerably cheaper than face-to-face, you can appreciate the incentives for Government to want to push telephone advice as far as it can"

There is undoubtedly a place and purpose in the future provision of telephone advice. Citizens Advice successfully delivers much of its advice at general help level. Equally my own experience of say NHS Direct as a telephone based source of medical advice has been very positive and considerably easier than waiting to call the local surgery and then waiting for a hard pressed GP to call you back.

However, the telephone mode of advice delivery has its problems with the kind of client group who are often reliant on Legal Help. It can be argued that correctly executed gateway telephone interviews will identify a problem which would be better dealt with on a face to face basis. However, many of the advisers amongst you, will recognise that even the most skilfully delivered telephone advice doesn't always identify a problem which needs fixing. In my own experience I can recall many situations where, when faced with client clutching bundles of unsorted documents, I've been able to catch sight of an important Court paper or decision letter which the client had not realized the importance of. I think it important to remember that many of us already deliver legal assistance through a combination of face to face and telephone advice. It would be very helpful to have some 'real life' examples of how telephone advice could not have substituted face to face delivery.