Lodging a complaint about case officer.

Twelve Bar Blues · 20-07-2018 12:23PM

^^^^ I hope OP gives us an update.....

UrbanFret · 23-07-2018 11:03PM

I got a reply this morning. I have a meeting next Tuesday 31st with the supervisor. I'll let you know how that goes.

n!ghtmancometh · 23-07-2018 11:21PM

Best of luck OP. I was a year and half unemployed up til last year and it was soul destroying, but what was even worse was the ignorant twats (few earlier in this thread) who would go on about "the economy booming" and "why can't they find work?" when they have no idea how hard it is to get a job without currently being employed or having recent experience or a CV gap. It's still incredibly tough for even stuff like retail jobs at the moment. My 19 yo underemployed sister (no guaranteed hours in her current job) had to do a two hour group interview and team skills session for a job folding clothes in H+M the other week for feck sake!

I was always treated fairly by the SW staff, as I would bring in envelopes full of emails from places I'd applied as well as fill in those lists of places I'd applied for jobs that Intreo would give out. Came to the point where the case officer stopped looking at them.

But it's completely unfair for your case worker to speak to you in such an unprofessional manner. It's the last thing anyone needs when their self worth is down from being unemployed, to have it kicked even further by someone who's supposed to be there to help them,

Graces7 · 26-07-2018 04:12AM

I made a formal complaint re a SW senior staff member who was being unspeakably abusive and obstructional. It was never dealt with but the abuse stopped .

UrbanFret · 31-07-2018 09:57PM

Well I had the meeting with the supervisor this afternoon and I have to say she was much more pleasant than my case officer.She was prepared to listen to what I had to say and didn't resort to any threats or gun to the head tactics. However she dodged all comments I made about how rude the case officer had been to me. anyway I am going to take a course for 12 weeks so I wouldn't be seeing the other ignoramus for a while, hopefully never.

ShaShaBear · 05-08-2018 09:23PM

UrbanFret wrote: »

Well I had the meeting with the supervisor this afternoon and I have to say she was much more pleasant than my case officer.She was prepared to listen to what I had to say and didn't resort to any threats or gun to the head tactics. However she dodged all comments I made about how rude the case officer had been to me. anyway I am going to take a course for 12 weeks so I wouldn't be seeing the other ignoramus for a while, hopefully never.

Just a word of caution, we went through EXACTLY this process with my husband just over a year ago and said Case Officer responded by raining hell on us.
She was extremely abusive to my partner - called him names, suspended his payment for being late to a meeting he was half an hour early for, called him a liar, screamed at him and cancelled appointments he had made with other officials telling them he requested cancellation but not telling him squat. When he complained, the regional manager got in touch with us (my husband records all important calls for our own records so we're sure we don't miss anything important) and he promised to deal with the Case Officer. One week later, we got 2 abusive phonecalls from the Case Officer (also recorded) where she screamed profanities and abuse at my husband and hung up as soon as he informed her of the recordings. Mere days later his claim was completely suspended until further notice as he had apparently told 3 different officals he was now working 3-4 days a week (one of which was apparently during the phonecall with the regional manager which we had recorded). When my husband rang head office for our area to query this and explained he had recorded proof this never occured, she hung up on him. We were forced to go to the CWO as we have two young children who both attended Temple Street and couldn't afford to feed them, let alone get them to their appointments! She even tried to block our path there by informing the CWO that my partner was working FULL-TIME! Eventually, my husband managed to get an interview for a CE scheme locally doing something he's extremely interested in a career progression in and, yep - she tried to step in there too by saying that since his claim was suspended, he technically wasn't getting a qualified payment and they wouldn't be allowing it!

She still has her position, and we have heard from several local people that she still power-trips. We had nothing but trouble, upset and hardships from reporting this woman!

splinter65 · 05-08-2018 10:03PM

This is outrageous. I would implore you to escalate this complaint up through the ranks until you can go to the Ombudsman. You have nothing to lose.

Glass fused light · 05-08-2018 10:14PM

ShaShaBear wrote: »

She still has her position, and we have heard from several local people that she still power-trips. We had nothing but trouble, upset and hardships from reporting this woman!

if she is deliberately messing with your husband's records and he has not found permanent work I would look to do a FOI on what has been recorded and by whom as well as doing a written complaint on her behaviour. If nothing else her manager should have sense and pull her up and bar her from accessing your husbands data in the future. The department is also subject to the new data protection rules so any manager with any sense should stop her behaviour before it rebounds back in them.

TomOnBoard · 06-08-2018 12:13AM

ShaShaBear is painting an awful picture of state- sponsored bullying and terrorism. Now, I don't mean any disrespect to ShaShaBear, but I won't rush to judgement on the allegations, as we don't know the full picture- any such judgement would be based on an anonymous posting in an anonymous forum that lends itself to all kinds of manipulation.

However, IF the circumstances as described by ShaShaBear are even close to the truth, THEN there has been an appalling manipulation and abuse of power by an official against the rights of a family in our community. By the same token, IF the circumstances are waaaay different than has been alleged, then this poster is basically hijacking this thread for their own purposes.

The big question that does arise, based on this above description, on top of the situation described by the OP, is whether this is a common experience among clients of the system, and whether there is a systemic bullying mentality in place?

fritzelly · 06-08-2018 12:20AM

Well that is quite some post by someone not all that new at boards.ie to kinda brush it off as trollish
I've heard anecdotal evidence about some individuals working in the area (and no reason not to believe them) but this was more on the social worker side than the actual people that deal with claims etc.

Glass fused light · 06-08-2018 08:01AM

TomOnBoard wrote: »

ShaShaBear is painting an awful picture of state- sponsored bullying and terrorism. Now, I don't mean any disrespect to ShaShaBear, but I won't rush to judgement on the allegations, as we don't know the full picture- any such judgement would be based on an anonymous posting in an anonymous forum that lends itself to all kinds of manipulation.

However, IF the circumstances as described by ShaShaBear are even close to the truth, THEN there has been an appalling manipulation and abuse of power by an official against the rights of a family in our community. By the same token, IF the circumstances are waaaay different than has been alleged, then this poster is basically hijacking this thread for their own purposes.

The exact same could be said about the op.

TomOnBoard wrote: »

The big question that does arise, based on this above description, on top of the situation described by the OP, is whether this is a common experience among clients of the system, and whether there is a systemic bullying mentality in place?

With a big organisation there will be a range of personalities and therefore a range in the qualities of the provision of services when dealing with the public.
ShaShaBear's case officer's behaviour sounded like obsessive or someone with mental health difficulties. And anybody who has lived in this country has to be aware that such abuses can occur particularly where the victim is not in a position to navigate the complaints process while still worring about how it will impact further on their current living condition.

From personal experience when dealing with an individual staff member on behalf of a relative, I know that the staff member accessed my record and at attempted to threaten me with 'cutting off benefits' as I had mentioned I was not working. I also know that the employee also accessed at least two other relatives files while on the phone with me. That being said any other staff member that I have had dealing with were extremely helpful and courteous in their dealing with me.

They don't have a HR culture of quickly dealing with "problem" employees. The fact that it is a public body with a strong union can leave it complicated to deal with mis-performing employees and the culture is something which can be slow to change.

splinter65 · 06-08-2018 08:19AM

Shashabear has recordings of interactions with this employee.
It’s quite straightforward to escalate through DSP complaints procedure ( by registered post) each letter giving the Dept 10 working days to respond.
If shashabear is unhappy with the response at the end then the Ombudsman’s office will be very interested.
The CIC will be glad to help with the letters especially as the complainants have names dates and times of all the incidents and all parties concerned.
Often complaints are unproven when the complainant gets dates of appointments badly wrong but that won’t happen in this case because it’s all recorded.

ShaShaBear · 06-08-2018 06:51PM

TomOnBoard wrote: »

ShaShaBear is painting an awful picture of state- sponsored bullying and terrorism. Now, I don't mean any disrespect to ShaShaBear, but I won't rush to judgement on the allegations, as we don't know the full picture- any such judgement would be based on an anonymous posting in an anonymous forum that lends itself to all kinds of manipulation.

However, IF the circumstances as described by ShaShaBear are even close to the truth, THEN there has been an appalling manipulation and abuse of power by an official against the rights of a family in our community. By the same token, IF the circumstances are waaaay different than has been alleged, then this poster is basically hijacking this thread for their own purposes.

The big question that does arise, based on this above description, on top of the situation described by the OP, is whether this is a common experience among clients of the system, and whether there is a systemic bullying mentality in place?

This would, from my own experience, be more common in the smaller offices in more "rural" towns and counties as a whole. Fortunately my husband is out of that mess and we have been working to take it further in a safer channel but rest assured, the "dole bums" of Ireland are definitely being treated like that by Case Officers and officials in the department. I was simply warning the OP that it can take a very nasty turn and to think long and hard about how it will affect those around them if members of staff/management decide to retaliate.

Graces7 · 06-08-2018 07:35PM

Wondering where you live as I had the same treatment

ShaShaBear wrote: »

Just a word of caution, we went through EXACTLY this process with my husband just over a year ago and said Case Officer responded by raining hell on us.
She was extremely abusive to my partner - called him names, suspended his payment for being late to a meeting he was half an hour early for, called him a liar, screamed at him and cancelled appointments he had made with other officials telling them he requested cancellation but not telling him squat. When he complained, the regional manager got in touch with us (my husband records all important calls for our own records so we're sure we don't miss anything important) and he promised to deal with the Case Officer. One week later, we got 2 abusive phonecalls from the Case Officer (also recorded) where she screamed profanities and abuse at my husband and hung up as soon as he informed her of the recordings. Mere days later his claim was completely suspended until further notice as he had apparently told 3 different officals he was now working 3-4 days a week (one of which was apparently during the phonecall with the regional manager which we had recorded). When my husband rang head office for our area to query this and explained he had recorded proof this never occured, she hung up on him. We were forced to go to the CWO as we have two young children who both attended Temple Street and couldn't afford to feed them, let alone get them to their appointments! She even tried to block our path there by informing the CWO that my partner was working FULL-TIME! Eventually, my husband managed to get an interview for a CE scheme locally doing something he's extremely interested in a career progression in and, yep - she tried to step in there too by saying that since his claim was suspended, he technically wasn't getting a qualified payment and they wouldn't be allowing it!

She still has her position, and we have heard from several local people that she still power-trips. We had nothing but trouble, upset and hardships from reporting this woman!

Turnipman · 07-08-2018 09:28PM

Graces7 wrote: »

Wondering where you live as I had the same treatment

Dundalk.

Kirby · 08-08-2018 04:35PM

yabadabado wrote: »

What are you going to do with a recording and will you be seeking consent to record this person?

I'd advise you to be very careful if you plan on recording someone without their knowledge/consent.

You do not need consent to record a conversation you have/had with another person per the Postal and telecommunications act of 1983. Two party consent is only applicable where a person is expecting the right to privacy...i.e their own home.

So he can record all he wants as long as he is present. To suggest otherwise is false so I'm going to assume you were just misinformed and not willfully giving him bad information.

Now, the legal usefulness of any recording is questionable as neither the ombudsman or the labor court will allow it but he can record away if he wants.

FYI in Ireland if a legal dispute ever gets to court, it is at the discretion of the judge on whether an audio or video conversation is admissible with only one party consent.

splinter65 · 08-08-2018 07:17PM

Kirby wrote: »

You do not need consent to record a conversation you have/had with another person per the Postal and telecommunications act of 1983. Two party consent is only applicable where a person is expecting the right to privacy...i.e their own home.

So he can record all he wants as long as he is present. To suggest otherwise is false so I'm going to assume you were just misinformed and not willfully giving him bad information.

Now, the legal usefulness of any recording is questionable as neither the ombudsman or the labor court will allow it but he can record away if he wants.

FYI in Ireland if a legal dispute ever gets to court, it is at the discretion of the judge on whether an audio or video conversation is admissible with only one party consent.

I can’t see how an audio recording is any more use then a chocolate tea pot. For a start , how will you prove who it is that’s speaking? It could be any two people.
Why can’t people try and be realistic. If you whip out your iPhone and start recording me then I’m going to treat that as an act of aggression. I’m going to suspend the interview and fetch my supervisor who’s going to point you in the direction of the signs which say that recording is prohibited.
If you insist that you will record then you will be asked to leave and if you don’t leave then securitywill remove you.
Point me in the direction of any YouTube videos online of indoors meetings between SW customers and staff.
There are none.

Kirby · 08-08-2018 07:30PM

splinter65 wrote: »

I can’t see how an audio recording is any more use then a chocolate tea pot. For a start , how will you prove who it is that’s speaking? It could be any two people.
Why can’t people try and be realistic. If you whip out your iPhone and start recording me then I’m going to treat that as an act of aggression. I’m going to suspend the interview and fetch my supervisor who’s going to point you in the direction of the signs which say that recording is prohibited.
If you insist that you will record then you will be asked to leave and if you don’t leave then securitywill remove you.
Point me in the direction of any YouTube videos online of indoors meetings between SW customers and staff.
There are none.

Nowhere in my post do I actually suggest he do so. If you read it you would now that. If he wants to, thats up to him.

I was correcting another poster who questioned the legality of doing so. It is perfectly legal. And you don't as you put it have to "whip out your Iphone". You are under no obligation to inform them you are recording. Keep it in your pocket.

As to people or signage indicating that recording is prohibited, they are as legally binding as signs saying tooth fairies and Unicorns are prohibited. As in they are not in any way.

Knowing your rights and the law is helpful. When a person starts blustering about being filmed you can immediately shut them down by quoting the legislation down to the sub-paragraph. It usually shuts them up.

splinter65 · 08-08-2018 07:38PM

Knowing your rights and the law is helpful. When a person starts blustering about being filmed you can immediately shut them down by quoting the legislation down to the sub-paragraph. It usually shuts them up.[/quote]

Once again your being completely unrealistic. I’ve worked in a public service office for nearly twenty years and especially since the advent of the iPhone many customers have attempted to “record” interactions and I can assure you that quoting legislation will NOT shut anyone down.
If you can point me in the direction of online proof of anyone in a SW office in Ireland being “shut down” then I’ll gladly look at it.
Because surely if such video evidence existed then it would be somewhere on line, no?

Kirby · 08-08-2018 08:22PM

I'm confused. Are you trying to tell me its illegal to record with one party consent or not?

I've explained it is. I've quoted the legislation. It's available online if you want to read it. Everything else is just irrelevant and whataboutery. Iphones, realism, youtube links and the like. It has absolutely nothing to do with the law.

You've claimed there have been plenty of people tell you they are recording you. I guarantee that for every person who told you, there are more who didn't. I speak from personal experience. The reason I know the legality of it is because I asked a Solicitor first.

I had a departmental employee be incredibly rude to me and make very inappropriate comments. She was literally screaming and shouting. I made a formal complaint. Not much was done because she denied it. I requested another member of staff but was told it wasn't procedure and that I was stuck with her.

In my next meeting with her, I recorded her. She behaved ridiculously again, as I knew she would. I made another complaint and their response when I informed them of this 46 minute recording was rather different than last time. I received an apology and was given another "engagement officer". Coincidentally, she no longer works for the department.

As for posting something like this on youtube I fail to see what it would accomplish.

splinter65 · 08-08-2018 10:33PM

I don’t know why your confused. If you can explain to me how you would prove that your 46 minute audio recording was between you and the civil servant you allege it was with then ill listen to you .

TheQuietFella · 08-08-2018 10:38PM

UrbanFret wrote: »

Intreo which is run by the dept as far as I am aware. Thanks for the advice. she went as far as accusing me of not trying to get employment and asked me why I hadn't applied for a job 85km away. Her words And I quote "I'll be cutting your benefit".:mad:

So why didn't you?

Kirby · 09-08-2018 01:16AM

splinter65 wrote: »

I don’t know why your confused. If you can explain to me how you would prove that your 46 minute audio recording was between you and the civil servant you allege it was with then ill listen to you .

How pedantic.

It's quite simple really. When people hear themselves on tape, they don't go "Thats not me!" because its clearly them. For somebody who has asked for "realism" the idea that somebody would deny it being their voice is ridiculous.

But if you simply must ask for evidence....fine. The evidence would be that the topics and information discussed on said tape would not be available to a member of the public and would only be available to an employee of social welfare....ergo the other person would have to be a social welfare employee.There. Proven. You could also follow it up with evidence that you met with this particular person due to the form you have to sign during the meeting thus putting to rest any notion that it was another employee and not the person in question. Thats not even getting into witnesses as frankly....they wouldn't be needed.

I have absolutely no idea why you have chosen this bizarre "prove its me on the tape!" line to die on a hill for but thats for you to decide. Maybe you thought you couldn't be taped and are upset that it turned out not to be the case. Thats the only rational thing I can think of.

Ultimately I answered the question posed. Yes, one party consent is all that is required to record a conversation legally as long as you are physically present. I've established that and tbh I have no wish to continue in some weird hypothetical situation where somebody would deny it being their voice. The idea is absurd.

If the OP wants to do it, that is their right.

09-08-2018 01:39AM

Kirby wrote: »

Two party consent is only applicable where a person is expecting the right to privacy...i.e their own home.

Or their workplace.

Every single SW office has signs up saying that it is illegal to record the goings on at a meeting held on their premises, for obvious reasons. Didn't the General make life miserable for some poor bloke who stopped his dole?

splinter65 · 09-08-2018 07:35AM

Kirby wrote: »

How pedantic.

It's quite simple really. When people hear themselves on tape, they don't go "Thats not me!" because its clearly them. For somebody who has asked for "realism" the idea that somebody would deny it being their voice is ridiculous.

But if you simply must ask for evidence....fine. The evidence would be that the topics and information discussed on said tape would not be available to a member of the public and would only be available to an employee of social welfare....ergo the other person would have to be a social welfare employee.There. Proven. You could also follow it up with evidence that you met with this particular person due to the form you have to sign during the meeting thus putting to rest any notion that it was another employee and not the person in question. Thats not even getting into witnesses as frankly....they wouldn't be needed.

I have absolutely no idea why you have chosen this bizarre "prove its me on the tape!" line to die on a hill for but thats for you to decide. Maybe you thought you couldn't be taped and are upset that it turned out not to be the case. Thats the only rational thing I can think of.

Ultimately I answered the question posed. Yes, one party consent is all that is required to record a conversation legally as long as you are physically present. I've established that and tbh I have no wish to continue in some weird hypothetical situation where somebody would deny it being their voice. The idea is absurd.

If the OP wants to do it, that is their right.

I’ve no wish to continue this conversation either.
Your proof that it is my voice seems to be that no one else would have the information that is on your SW file, yet all anyone has to do is request a copy of their file under the FOI and they’d have all that info.
I’m not a solicitor nor do I have any legal training yet even I know that.
You are encouraging another poster to insist that he or she may record a meeting with a SW employee in a SW office when it’s not permitted and you know that. You have no evidence except a made up story of your own that anyone else has ever successfully recorded a meeting with SW and even attempted to use it to their advantage.
So I’ll leave it at that.

Graces7 · 09-08-2018 07:57AM

ShaShaBear wrote: »

This would, from my own experience, be more common in the smaller offices in more "rural" towns and counties as a whole. Fortunately my husband is out of that mess and we have been working to take it further in a safer channel but rest assured, the "dole bums" of Ireland are definitely being treated like that by Case Officers and officials in the department. I was simply warning the OP that it can take a very nasty turn and to think long and hard about how it will affect those around them if members of staff/management decide to retaliate.

Thank you for this.

I was treated very aggressively by either the same official or her clone where I live and yes, a small place where she clearly ruled the roost.

She came into the interview room yelling at the top of her voice and the aggression.... I am by the way nearly 80, visibly disabled.

The letters and demands for more and more repeated paperwork and that I attend time and time again even after I had told her I can rarely leave the house let alone the island....she kept sending appointment letters she knew I could not keep.
I had been advised to try to get help with appliances. ie and exceptional needs payment.

finally I sent in a formal complaint and never heard back, but the letters etc stopped. Was too ill at the time to follow through. Sounds like that was the best way..

BigCon · 09-08-2018 09:23AM

I was in my local social welfare office last week for the first time (public services card appointment) and I couldn't believe what I saw.
At least three different individuals were shouting at the staff, one guy stormed into an interview room in the middle of someone elses interview and was roaring at the staff member.
The best of it all was that when I was chatting to the staff member they said that it was a normal occurrence and they didn't seem to be one bit upset.
All this in spite of the fact that there's posters everywhere advising that everyone must be treated with dignity and respect...

Squatter · 09-08-2018 09:59AM

BigCon wrote: »

I was in my local social welfare office last week for the first time (public services card appointment) and I couldn't believe what I saw.
At least three different individuals were shouting at the staff, one guy stormed into an interview room in the middle of someone elses interview and was roaring at the staff member.
The best of it all was that when I was chatting to the staff member they said that it was a normal occurrence and they didn't seem to be one bit upset.
All this in spite of the fact that there's posters everywhere advising that everyone must be treated with dignity and respect...

It is a normal occurrence in certain exchanges - generally the larger ones in bigger town and cities - and it leads to higher incidences of sickness rates for the unfortunate staff involved, most of whom are at the bottom of the civil service pay scale and are earning not that much more than the vermin who abuse them. (From my experience, people from a particular non-European nationality are known to be particularly rude to staff - and I mean spectacularly rude and obnoxious!)

In the interests of balance, I should add that there are some SW Inspectors around the place who have well-deserved reputations for treating some of their clients very badly. There appears to be a failure of management here, as despite complaints being made, they continue to act in the same way.

Kirby · 09-08-2018 12:27PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Or their workplace.

Every single SW office has signs up saying that it is illegal to record the goings on at a meeting held on their premises, for obvious reasons. Didn't the General make life miserable for some poor bloke who stopped his dole?

Thats actually not true. You have no expectation of privacy at your workplace. It's why its legal for security to film you.

There are also signs in the airport stating that filming is prohibited but that is ALSO legally untrue. You are not allowed to film a member of staff directly but you CAN legally film yourself, your party and virtually anything else including members of staff in the background as long as they are not the intended target.

That is the law. My point being that signs stating filming is not allowed are everywhere and in 99% of cases are not legally binding and that includes a SW office.

splinter65 · 09-08-2018 01:53PM

BigCon wrote: »

I was in my local social welfare office last week for the first time (public services card appointment) and I couldn't believe what I saw.
At least three different individuals were shouting at the staff, one guy stormed into an interview room in the middle of someone elses interview and was roaring at the staff member.
The best of it all was that when I was chatting to the staff member they said that it was a normal occurrence and they didn't seem to be one bit upset.
All this in spite of the fact that there's posters everywhere advising that everyone must be treated with dignity and respect...

As you can see in this thread there is a particularly insistent poster who is continuing to encourage other posters to attempt to film and record SW staff on the basis that it’s a legal right.
He/she is advising that once you tell the staff member that they have a legal right to film and this should “shut them up”.
This is the cowardly bullying attitude people in public service offices are faced with every day.

Lodging a complaint about case officer.

Comments