UK: Capita seeks to reverse 'reputational damage' after death of (agoraphobia & fibro) claimant (from brain haemorrhage)

Capita seeks to reverse 'reputational damage' after death of claimant

By Michael Buchanan

Social affairs correspondent, BBC News

Benefit-assessment company Capita is going to court to try to reverse the "reputational damage" it says it suffered after a claimant died.

Victoria Smith died months after her personal independence payments were stopped following a Capita assessment.

The outsourcing company was ordered to pay £10,000 in damages over its handling of her disability claim.

It was found to have made incorrect statements but wants the county court verdict set aside and the case reheard.

More at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49208240

 

Capita PR guys meeting: "Wonder how we could present our company as even more incompetent and greedy..."

 

Can someone explain what Capita is? I tried to look it up but I don't get it.

 

Capita are a private company who are under contract to assess claims for state social security benefits (“welfare”) by the UK government on their behalf. That’s basically it, and that’s why Capita were taken to court and not the government, if that’s what you were wondering?

 

If they cannot employ people to open the post and read a County Court summons informing them that judgment may be entered in default of appearance or defence, it is hardly surprising that they do not employ people capable of complex decision making.

They certainly know how to go about restoring their reputation...or, perhaps, confirming it.

 

I see, that makes sense, thank you. Well, the reality doesn't seem to make much sense, but your answer does.

What's confusing me when trying to read about it is that they seem to do... everything? Not just welfare/healthcare - like it's sort of a privatized comprehensive bureaucracy that the state contracts? Is that accurate? I know that goes beyond discussion of their direct impact on illness/disability, but it's striking to me - probably because our whole system functions differently in the USA, so I can't think of any analogous corporation.

 

Since the govt first decided to outsource in this way (it’s been both Labour Party and Conservative party policy) large companies with many fingers in many pies have risen up. There is a lot of money to be made from government contracts on terms that can be unduly favourable to the company. G4S is another such company; they famously bungled the aspects of security that were their responsibility the UK Olympics.

I would say more but shhhh!! politics!!

 

Yes. They're notorious for doing it all equally badly, too. Private Eye magazine doesn't call them "Crapita" for nothing!

That wikipedia page @Nellie posted is incredible. It's just a litany of failures, but successive governments have been addicted to throwing money at them hand over fist.

Edit: even the BBC article has this in it:

"We're so incompetent that we don't even have a functioning email system, so we can't possibly be blamed for our incompetence in the benefits assessments we do that are killing people". Unbelievable.

 

see also Maximus and Atos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_Capability_Assessment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Independence_Payment

DWP figures show PIP complaints against Atos and Capita continue to rise
June 27 2019
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.c...nts-against-atos-and-capita-continue-to-rise/

eta:

Capita also got the contract to fit ankle-tags for released prisoners.

 

It makes sense if you think of them as companies that developed specifically to make the most of government contracts, rather than companies the grew out of work in one particular field or with a specific service area.

There is some evidence that they had a specific brief to reduce the number of people on benefit, and that staff even had quotas towards achieving this.

 

It sounds like they want to judgement put aside

https://www.gov.uk/county-court-judgments-ccj-for-debt/if-you-dont-owe-the-money

"You can do this if you did not receive, or did not respond to, the original claim from the court saying you owed the money."

I've taken people to the small claims court in the county court system and someone tried to use this defense before. The court was scathing about it at the new hearing.

 

@Peter Trewhitt

I agree that there very likely is a plan to reduce claimants. Tragically, these systems often see the ends justify the means. Company bonuses for cutting off the sick and disabled are the end goals.

 

I see it as the government preferring to give taxpayers money to parasitic industries rather than have a meaningful welfare system . or to create a welfare system so full of holes that those who can afford it will foolishly pay insurance companies for income protection plans as well as health care plans after all you do not often see front page news of insurance companies flatly and fraudulently refusing to pay out on their policies which have more get out clause in the small print than actual policy .

 

This whole story is really grim. The UK is a bit crap.

 

No, the insurance companies keep off the front pages by using non-disclosure agreements in cases where they do actually make a settlement.

 

Just a bit??

 

To be fair, I don't see how this woman's death from a brain haemorrhage can be Capita's fault.