Child Disability Payment decision making guide

Inconsistencies and gaps in supporting information

When you look at supporting information with an application or review form, there may be gaps or inconsistencies. Not all gaps and inconsistencies need to be explored.

By an inconsistency, we are referring to information that is not consistent with each other. This could be information that is directly contradictory but can also be information that is inconsistent in regards to severity of needs or impacts.

For example, an individual may explain on their application that they require help from their mum to get dressed on some days. Their mum provides supporting information from the client’s wider support network and explains they help them get dressed every day. The two pieces of information are inconsistent with each other but are not direct conflicts. The parent confirms they help them get dressed, but there is an inconsistency in regards to how often they help them.

Inconsistencies can occur:

  • within a piece of information
  • between pieces of supporting information
  • between supporting information and the application or review form

By a gap, we’re referring to missing information specifically relating to an individual’s needs and the impact of their condition. Gaps do not refer to a lack of a confirmation from a professional. You should refer to Gathering Supporting Information for guidance on what to do where there is no confirmation from a professional. The size and significance of a gap will vary and should be expected. This is because conditions can be life-long and complex and it can be difficult for any one source to include all of the details on these.

Whether a gap needs to be filled is dependent on its significance. The significance of a gap is dependent on your ability to determine entitlement. If you are unable to make an entitlement decision without filling the gap, other decision-making tools can be used to help fill the gap. This includes gathering additional supporting information to establish entitlement if other decision-making tools have not helped.

A gap does not need to be filled if the missing information would only be helpful to have but would not be necessary for your decision-making. This would be an insignificant gap.

Before attempting to fill a gap or explore an inconsistency, you should consider whether:

  • it can be resolved or accepted without taking any action
  • it is significant enough to need exploring
  • the piece of supporting information containing the gap or inconsistency is valuable and would merit having the inconsistency explored

When deciding whether a gap or inconsistency can be resolved or accepted without taking any action, consider all of the following:

  • individuals may under-report their needs, especially if they have more than one condition
  • unanswered questions, or answers that don’t offer helpful insights, may not mean that the individual has no needs in that area. Individuals and sources of supporting information may leave out useful information because they’re not used to the questions on our forms
  • the view of a professional may be conclusive of their opinion but is not automatically conclusive in establishing an individual’s condition or needs. Context and point of reference are vital
  • the source of the supporting information may be from someone who doesn’t know the full extent of the individual’s needs and this can explain an inconsistency
  • supporting information does not need to support every declared need, especially if the individual has complex needs and/or several conditions

If you do decide to explore a gap or inconsistency, you must:

  • remain aware of your unconscious bias and ensure you approach gap or inconsistency from a neutral position. You should not assume the outcome of the gap or inconsistency until you have explored it
  • make decisions based on the balance of probabilities, as always, making use of other decision-making tools where needed.

Exploring inconsistencies in supporting information

You should consider the following points when you explore an inconsistency between supporting information. You should continue to remember that all supporting information must be given equal consideration.

If the individual’s own information has conflicting details, clarify this directly with the individual or the person acting on their behalf where possible.

The value of the supporting information

At what point in the process you choose to explore an inconsistency will differ from case-to-case and depend on:

  • whether there is a reasonable explanation for the inconsistency
  • if the information containing the inconsistency is valuable
  • the complexity of the inconsistency

Whether you establish the value of a piece of supporting information before exploring an inconsistency is at your discretion.

In some cases, you will need to have to have considered the value of a piece of supporting information before deciding if an inconsistency needs exploring. This will likely be in scenarios where the inconsistency is complex or not easily resolved.

This can help ensure that you are exploring an inconsistency for information you have concluded is valuable.

Where the information containing the inconsistency is of little value, you should consider if there are any benefits to exploring the inconsistency.

However, for other inconsistencies, you may decide that the process for resolving it would be quick. In these circumstances, it’s reasonable to explore the inconsistency before you have robustly considered the value of the supporting information.

Other decision making tools

You should consider what decision-making tools would best help you resolve an inconsistency. This includes continuing to use the balance of probabilities throughout the decision making process to establish whether the needs are likely to exist, given the information you have.

By best, we mean the outcome of an inconsistency being resolved robustly in a time efficient manner. This means you will need to balance how well a decision-making tool would help you to resolve an inconsistency with how long that same tool would take to help you resolve the same inconsistency.

For example, an inconsistency may exist between what a GP has submitted and what the individual’s wider support network describes the individual’s needs as. You may decide that the best way to resolve this definitely would be to request further supporting information from the GP. However, you also know that the GP took a long time to respond to initial supporting information request and so you are unlikely to get a quick response on your new request.

You should consider if other decision-making tools, such as a case discussion, would provide similar results in regards to helping you resolve the inconsistency. This approach balances the quality of information with the time it takes to establish that information.

Gathering further supporting information should not be your default decision-making tool. Supporting information is one of a suite of decision-making tools you can use to help you make a decision. It is also often the decision-making tool that will take the longest time to provide you with the information you need.

Before gathering further supporting information, you should always consider whether the inconsistency can be resolved through a follow-up call to the individual or the person acting on their behalf. You should also ensure you have read the guidance:

  • in this chapter on supporting information after an application
  • in the Gathering supporting information chapter

Supporting information after an application

Supporting information is often submitted or collected after an application. This supporting information:

  • should be considered in the same way as information given with the application
  • does not have to support every detail in the application or review form

Only request additional supporting information after an application if all of these apply:

  • it’s essential to your decision-making
  • the individual has given their consent for you to do so
  • no other decision making-tools have provided the information you need

Involving a practitioner

Involving a practitioner is recommended when:

  • you have identified inconsistencies and need the expertise of a practitioner to help you explore them
  • you do not have enough supporting information to make a decision

Sign up to our newsletter

If you are an organisation or individual who works with people who may need information or support on any of our benefits, sign up to our stakeholder newsletter.

We'll never send you content you haven’t asked for and you can opt out at any time.

Please enter a valid email address

Read our privacy policy