UC50: DWP/HAAS contact with HCPs & other

Hi, I'd appreciate some advice (if possible) re. the UC50 question 'About other Healthcare Professionals, carers, friends or relatives who know the most about your disability, illness or health condition.' - which I'll refer to here as referees - and the general ops of DWP or HAAS obtaining information from those I list here.

Firstly, I had believed - perhaps incorrectly - that having been identified as needing a WCA on a new claim and sent a UC50 that the assessment process would have been delegated to the HAAS until a report could be produced and delivered to the DWP (whereupon a DM would rubber-stamp or otherwise). However, the way that the B&W Guide is written suggests that it would rather be directly-employed DWP staff who make contact with referees, presumably before passing on to the HAAS.

The latter seems perverse but then again what are DWP if not bureaucratic perverts - was I wrong or does the guide conflate the two?

Secondly, and related to this, the above question requests telephone contacts for anyone I list: especially where referees are not healthcare professionals (HCPs) is it broadly a good idea to give a contact telephone number? Speculatively, if the HAAS contractor would be asking I could believe it a straightforward dilemma in hoping those listed don't make misleadingly optimistic statements which could be easily misconstrued, but if it's the DWP asking I'd imagine the chances of cynical attempts to manufacture gotchas increases dramatically (which I'd obviously appeal but who needs the stress, delay etc). Of course, this also affects whether and how I give consent - if I know the above, though, I can make a more informed decision about it.

Yours, confused. Much appreciated (in advance)!

Thanks for replying, David.
Not to be difficult or melodramatic...but when you say telephoned regarding authenticity can I take that as analogous to a witness cross-examination? Which suggests DWP not HAAS? I remain unclear who would be doing the call and what the nature of it would be, sorry (I had assumed the HAAS subcontractor in order to work out what level of points the referee statements support medically, but maybe a bad assumption on my part). If I put the OP badly, apologies - hopefully you catch my meaning and can clarify? Thank-you!

If it's any help, I'm quite friendly with one of my HCPs as I've been under her regular care for nearly 20 years, and she told me that when my last PIP review came around in 2023 someone from IAS (Atos) called her citing that they were 'empowered by the DWP' and gave her 'a right grilling' over my treatment regime. She didn't seem very pleased about it, to put it mildly. However she also intimated that it was quite unusual to get such a call. Happily for me they must have been satisfied by what she told them.

Bear in mind this was for PIP and not UC, and make of it what you will.

Thank-you both.
In case interested I thought I had something about it so just scanned through DM guidance I'd kept. I dipped into the WCA Handbook & DMG replacements ADMA1 and ADMG1 - to my reading, collectively it seems quite vague and conflicted, generally implying that HAAS should gather all evidence but arguably leaving it open simultaneously for the DM to contact referees if not content with the HAAS report (where consent has been given). PIP & UC procedures here do seem to vary in places so potentially in this also, agreed wibblum.
Makes me wonder if perhaps Steve D. & Holly W. state DWP rather than HAAS in the UC/ESA Guide because even the DWP aren't internally consistent or see them as interchangeable. Might be worth proposing a bit more consideration within the Guide at next review or something, if others have the same dilemma (which I'd suspect).

For this instance though, I'm good enough to finish the form so thanks both again!