Archive for the ‘Conservative Party’ Category
Government Rejects Benefit Sanctions Inquiry report call to change “inhuman” Sanctions Regime.
Our contributors could have already have said the following: “Benefit sanctions found to be ineffective and damaging. Study concludes that punishing claimants triggers profoundly negative outcomes”. (Guardian May 2018)
In fact some people who write here are in dire straits because of this regime.
But the Government is still turning its face against facts’
Today:
Margaret Greenwood MP, Labour’s Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, responding to the Work and Pensions Select Committee’s publication of the government’s response to its benefit sanctions inquiry, said:
“The government appears to be in complete denial about the impact of its sanctions regime on people’s lives. It is damaging people’s health and well-being and leaving many at risk of destitution.
“There is no evidence that sanctions lead to people finding work that lasts and lifts them out of poverty. This government is so extreme that it has rejected reducing the length of sanctions and is even prepared to consider making them longer.
“The real way to help people into work is through an industrial strategy to deliver jobs and growth and employment support tailored to each person’s needs. Labour will end this government’s cruel and counter-productive sanctions regime.”
No respite for “victims of a sanctions regime that is at times so counter-productive it just seems pointlessly cruel” in Government’s response
- Read the government response: Benefit sanctions
- Read the government response Benefit sanctions PDF (261KB)
- Read the report: Benefit sanctions
The Committee is today publishing the Government’s response to its report on benefit sanctions. While the Government has finally agreed to evaluate one aspect of the impact of its reforms to conditionality and sanctions – the “only major welfare reform this decade to have never been evaluated” – it is looking only at their effectiveness in getting people into work. While this is clearly key, as it is the supposed objective of the policy, the Government is still not even considering the impact of sanctions on claimants’ financial and personal wellbeing. The widely reported detrimental impact of sanctions on claimants’ welfare formed the basis of the Committee’s report, when the Chair noted “We have heard stories of terrible and unnecessary hardship from people who’ve been sanctioned. They were left bewildered and driven to despair at becoming, often with their children, the victims of a sanctions regime that is at times so counter-productive it just seems pointlessly cruel”.
Negative impact of sanctions worked against people getting into work
Even confined to the question of impact on employment, the Committee found that the negative impact of sanctions actually worked against people getting into work, to the extent that the Government’s approach appeared “arbitrarily punitive”. No evidence the Committee received was “more compelling than that against the imposition of conditionality and sanctions on people with a disability or health condition. It does not work. Worse, it is harmful and counterproductive.”
The Committee’s inquiry highlighted the distressing stories of claimants like Jen Fidai, a young disabled woman forced to sofa-surf and sleep in the Uni library for a year, and ultimately give up her studies, after she was sanctioned – erroneously, as it turned out. It is these impacts on claimants’ lives, and the countless others which the Committee’s report and ongoing shocking news reports only scratch the surface of, which the Government is refusing to assess.
Forceful recommendation by Committee rejected
The Government rejected the recommendation that claimants already found to have limited capability for work should be exempt from sanctions, and also rejected the recommendation that claimants who are waiting for a Work Capability Assessment – the medical assessments for disability benefits PIP and ESa which the Committee has previously denounced as “riddled with errors and omissions”, and also subject to lengthy delays – should be exempt from sanctions if they had a “Fit Note” from a doctor saying they were unable to work. Government says it is looking into the possibility of a general policy that conditionality shouldn’t apply to those assessed as having limited work capability and people waiting for a WCA – although this decision would be in the hands of Work Coaches, ignoring the Committee’s wider concern that leaving too much to Work Coaches’ discretion in terms of sanctions more widely risked leading to inconsistent practice. The Government also rejected the recommendation to define “good reason” for failing to meet a requirement that led to a sanction – currently left to work coach discretion, leading to inconsistent practice – in legislation.
The Committee’s forceful recommendation – in the face of distressing evidence of the impact of sanctions on lone parents and their children – never to dock more than 20% of a lone parent’s benefit, was rejected, with the Government promising only to assess the employment impact of sanctions on this group as well. The Committee has reported elsewhere on the particular, deep difficulties lone parents are encountering under the major welfare reforms of the decade, including in its report on support for childcare costs under Universal Credit
Once again, the Government’s position on a key recommendation – that claimants is no longer subject to the requirement, the condition, that led to the sanction should also have the ongoing sanction lifted: the Government rejected this recommendation – is difficult to square with the supposed objective of the policy. If sanctions are about incentivising, for example, looking for work, it is difficult to see the point of continuing to punish someone for not making sufficient efforts to find work when they are no longer in fact required to find work.
Chair’s Comment
Commenting on the response, Committee Chair Rt Hon Frank Field said:
“Our report laid bare the inhumanity of the Government’s sanctions regime, which it has pursued for years without ever stopping to check whether it works or what it is doing to the people it is meant to “support”.
In response, the Government has failed utterly to grasp the seriousness of the matter. It talks about reviews and “proof of concept”: it might want to take a look at the concept of not pushing disabled people and single parents—not to mention their children—into grinding poverty and hardship.”
Tories SNUB pleas to rein in ‘pointlessly cruel’ benefit sanctions
The Mirror.
New limits to the punishments were proposed in a damning report last year. But now DWP chiefs have rejected the plan – triggering a furious response.
Ministers have snubbed a series of recommendations designed to ease the burden of benefit sanctions on vulnerable claimants, it is revealed today.
A damning report from the Commons Work and Pensions Committee branded the system “pointlessly cruel” in November.
MPs warned the human cost of the sanctions regime was “simply too high” and called for new protections for single parents and people with disabilities and health conditions.
Committee chairman Frank Field today accuses ministers of “failing utterly to grasp the seriousness of the matter” after recommendations were rejected by Amber Rudd’s Department for Work and Pensions.
Under the current system, sanctions can be imposed for missing appointments or failure to show efforts to find work,.
Claimants face being stripped of up to 100% of their Jobseekers Allowance or Universal Credit standard allowance.
In some “higher level” cases – such as a failure to take up paid work – claimants can lose benefits for as long as three years.
The committee recommended that the maximum period for such sanctions should be limited to two months for the first failure to comply and four and six months for subsequent breaches.
But the DWP rejected the plan, along with recommendations to ensure lone parents with children aged under five are never subjected to the withdrawal of more than 20% of their welfare payments; limit sanctions on care-leavers below the age of 25 to 20% of their benefits; remove the threat of sanctions from claimants deemed to have “limited capability for work” and those with valid sickness notes from their doctors; and remove sanctions if a change in circumstances means the claimant is no longer subject to the requirement that led to benefits being withheld in the first place.
Universal Credit Creates “looming Eviction Crisis.
For many people Citizen’s Advice is the first port of call when they have problems with benefits, starting with Universal Credit.
Here is what’s happening with our Citizen’s Advice Service in Suffolk.
The East Anglian Daily Times reports:
On Thursday, February 14, the final vote on 2019/20 budget proposals will take place at Suffolk County Council’s full council meeting, where divisive cuts to the £368,000 Citizens Advice grant over two years has been put forward by the Conservative administration.
But the opposition Labour group, which has already called for a reversal of the cuts, has now tabled an amendment to ringfence £2,500 from each councillor’s locality budget – an £8,000 pot each councillor has to spend on projects and improvements in their ward – for Citizens Advice.
With 75 elected councillors, the proposal would secure £187,500 for Citizens Advice’s core funding.
It means that the £184,000 Citizens Advice is set to lose in 2019/20 is covered, while further ways to cover funding will be explored for 2020/21. Sarah Adams, Labour group leader, said the planned cuts were “a dangerous act of self-harm that will pile even more pressure on the council’s beleaguered public services”.
Here is the CAB’s latest statement on Universal Credit.
Citizens Advice reveals half of claimants seeking benefits assistance risk being evicted
Citizens Advice has called for a root and branch overhaul of universal credit, after revealing that half of all claimants who came to it for help managing the new benefit were at risk of being evicted owing to rent arrears and hardship.
Relatively minor changes to the way the benefit operates, announced by ministers in the 2017 budget after coming under intense pressure from campaigners, have “only made a dent in the problem rather than fixed it”, the charity said.
The minimum five-week wait for a first benefit payment left nearly half of claimants it advised unable to pay household bills, or forced them to go without essentials such as food or heating, it said, while 54% had to borrow cash from family and friends to stay afloat.
“Half the people we help with universal credit are still struggling to keep a roof over their heads while they wait for their first payment,” said Gillian Guy, the chief executive of Citizens Advice.
Here is the CAB Press Release:
People claiming Universal Credit are still struggling to pay for the roof over their heads, despite the wait for their first payment being reduced from 6 weeks to 5, new Citizens Advice data shows.
1 in 2 people the charity helped were in rent arrears or fell behind on their mortgage payments, the same number as when the wait for the first payment was longer.
Citizens Advice also found 60% of people it helped are taking out advances while they wait for payment.
The research also found that, following changes by Government in 2017, fewer people are falling behind on their bills or going without essentials during the wait period. Payment timeliness has improved – now 1 in 6 people are not paid in full and on time, while previously it was 1 in 4.
The report, Managing Money on Universal Credit, released today, reveals new analysis based on the 190,000 people Citizens Advice has helped with Universal Credit.
Among the people the charity helps with debt and Universal Credit:
Debt problems are more common for the people we help with Universal Credit than those claiming benefits under the previous system, with 24% of the people we helped with Universal Credit also seeking debt advice.
Nearly one in two (47%) have no money left after essential living costs (such as food, housing and transport) to pay creditors, or are spending more than they take in.
More than 4 in 5 (82%) hold priority debt such as council tax, rent arrears or mortgage payments, and energy debts.
Citizens Advice is calling on the government to make Universal Credit far more flexible to fit around people’s lives and to make sure people have enough money to live on.
It also wants Alternative Payment Arrangements to be more widely available, allowing for rent to be paid direct to a landlord, more frequent payments, and a payment to go to both members of a couple.
Just 3% of claimants currently receive more frequent payments, while just 20 households in the UK receive split payments to different family members.
Four in 10 of the people helped by Citizens Advice are aware of managed payments to landlords, while just 1 in 6 know payments can be made more frequently.
Gillian Guy, Chief Executive of Citizens Advice, said:
“Half the people we help with a Universal Credit claim are still struggling to keep a roof over their heads while they wait for their first payment.
“Changes to the waiting period for first payment have improved things for many people, but our evidence shows they don’t go far enough.
“Universal Credit must continue to be reformed so it works for all claimants and leaves people with enough money to live on.”
I watched this last night:
Life on Benefits: Universal Credit?
Brexit might be dominating the headlines – but arguably one of the biggest changes to the welfare state in a generation is the roll out of Universal Credit – which could affect over eight million people across the UK.
Tonight, Richard Bacon explores the impact of Universal Credit and meets some of those receiving the benefit.
CRITICISM
Universal Credit was announced in 2010 by Tory politician Ian Duncan Smith as a way to combine many benefits and incentivise people into work, but critics are furious that it’s bringing hardship to many families.
The Trussell Trust are a nationwide network of food banks and say the use of food banks have increased by 52% in areas where Universal Credit has been introduced.
Fair enough as it went, but it could have been an hour long instead of 30 minutes.
While Amber Rudd is Elsewhere Universal Credit Crisis Continues.
Ms Rudd will delay asking MPs to approve the transfer of three million benefit claimants to UC, and instead plans to move just 10,000 onto the system this summer as part of a trial to study its effectiveness.
Other important changes include pressing ahead with a pilot to support 10,000 people from ‘legacy benefits’ on to Universal Credit in a test and learn approach.
There remains this:
What is natural migration
‘Migration’ is the word in common use for the process by which a claimant with a current award of a ‘legacy’ benefit (income-based job-seeker’s allowance (JSA), income-related employment and support allowance (ESA), income support(IS), housing benefit(HB), child tax credit (CTC) and working tax credit (WTC)) has that award (or those awards) terminated, instead being obliged to rely on UC for means-tested support. Under current plans, the DWP intends to start an official ‘managed migration’ process in 2019. This will see the DWP mandatorily terminating current legacy benefit awards and replacing that with a claim for UC. In this process, transitional protection will apply for those whose UC award is lower than their legacy benefit entitlement. The process is due to be complete by March 2022.
By contrast, ‘natural migration’ is the process by which a current claimant can end up, in effect, being obliged to claim UC instead of legacy benefits for means-tested support, completely outside of the managed migration process. No transitional protection will apply. Natural migration is possible at any time, including before 2019. It is more likely to occur in UC full service areas, but can occur in UC live service (or gateway) areas too.
The Work and Pensions Committee is today launching a new inquiry into what the Government calls “natural migration”: the process by which people claiming existing benefits move onto Universal Credit if they have a change in their circumstances,
What is natural migration?
Universal Credit has now been rolled out to every Jobcentre in the country. This means that if people who are already claiming benefits under the old system have a change in their circumstances (for example, if they form part of a new couple, or separate from an existing partner), they can’t make a new claim for the old benefits. Instead, they have to make a whole new claim for Universal Credit.
The Government calls this “natural migration” to Universal Credit. People who transfer onto Universal Credit in this way aren’t eligible for any transitional protection payments and so may see a change in their income from benefits. For many people, this may be the first time that they discover that their income will change under Universal Credit.
Natural Migration inquiry launched
The Committee has heard concerns that:
- the Government hasn’t given clear and comprehensive information about the “triggers” for “natural migration”
- the absence of transitional protection means people might have to cope suddenly with a drop in income.
This is the latest stage in the Committee’s ongoing work on Universal Credit – which has already resulted in the Government making significant changes to the system
n its November report on so-called “managed migration” – the process of wholesale moving existing benefit claimants onto Universal Credit even if their circumstances haven’t changed – the Committee called on the Government to publish an assessment of the impact of a sudden loss of income due to natural migration on different claimant groups, and then to look again at whether the triggers for natural migration are appropriate. In its official response to that report, published today alongside this new inquiry launch, the Government has refused to do that.
The Chair has written back to the Secretary of State with a series of questions about the Government’s response:
- Letter from Chair Frank Field to Amber Rudd regarding Universal Credit: managed migration Government response – dated 17 January 2019
- Secretary of State Amber Rudd responding to Frank Field regarding moving claimants onto Universal Credit – dated 14 January 2019
The Committee is disappointed and concerned by the Government’s failure to engage with its report and reasoning behind key recommendations, and intends to return to several of them including, now, the “triggers” for natural migration. The Department declined, again, to set tests that it will meet before managed migration begins. “Given that we, the NAO and SSAC all made this recommendation, this continued resistance is very disappointing.”
The Government’s response also does not address the central issue of who takes the risk in the transition to Universal Credit, with the Committee arguing repeatedly that it should be Government, making the huge reform, who assume the risk, not existing benefit claimants who include the most vulnerable people in our society. The Government says it’s simply impossible for it to move people over without requiring them to make a new claim, but “did not offer—and has not offered during our inquiry—any evidence” why.
DWP also appears strangely reluctant to acknowledge the key recommendation it did accept. The Committee had said DWP should not ask MPs to vote on new UC rules until it had listened to expert views on them. And that is what happened: rather than a vote before Christmas as the Government had originally planned, revised rules were published last week. The Chair was therefore very “surprised to read that the Government ‘does not accept this recommendation’, given that by the time the response arrived the Government had not only accepted the recommendation but also implemented it.”
Universal Credit, it’s Official, “all types of claimants” “benefit from the improved, personalised, one-to-one support that Universal Credit offers.”
DWP MInisters Discuss Universal Credit.
The Conservative Party is having a nervous breakdown.
But, when they’re not having lunch at the Drones’ Club to get away from it all, they are sticking to Bertie Wooster’s policy of stout denial.
On the 21st of November this was said,
Amber Rudd insisted Universal Credit was a ‘force for good’ today and insisted tweaks would ensure it gets ‘cash into people’s hands’ more quickly.
Today the Mirror reports,
Universal Credit leaves applicants “scavenging in bins at night for food”
A tortuous process to sign up, an interminable wait without money after it and vulnerable applicants sidelined – new report highlights the human fallout of the new payment system being inflicted on the country.
Now a report from debt charity Christians Against Poverty (CAP) has revealed the shocking human cost of the key failures of the system, as people fall through the gaps.
“Some of the UK’s most vulnerable families are sinking in bureaucracy and we owe it to them to give them a voice and press for change,” CAP chief executive Matt Barlow said.
The charity, which helps people struggling to get by, found three key areas that urgently need addressing – as well as revealing some of the heartbreaking stories of the people who’ve been hurt by the mass-adoption of the new benefit.
CAP’s three biggest areas of concern are the online application, the wait for the first payment and the lack of understanding of how many people are truly vulnerable.
This is important, raising an issue many here have mentioned,
There is no paper form to apply to claim Universal Credit, you do it online. Worse, you can’t save the form half way through the process.
And that’s causing big problems for some people.
Those without internet access can be forced to travel to a library to use computers there. But this is typically only free for an hour a day.
You need details of past addresses and identification when filling it out, meaning if you’ve travelled to get to a computer, and have forgotten something, you need to go back only to return later and start the whole process again.
“This can lead to a real feeling of hopelessness and for someone very vulnerable be the difference between being helped by the welfare system and not,” CAP said.
This, now called ‘digital exclusion’ is a growing problem.
With one million people already claiming Universal Credit and another seven million still to transition, now is a key time to check in with these early claimants.
This series of papers explores the problems and hardship experienced by claimants and highlights areas where policymakers’ attention is needed.
The roll-out is a huge task and there have been changes made to improve the transition for many people (see CAP’s policy note here, but there is more to do. Download the papers below to read about the impact that claiming Universal Credit has had on people
Applying and waiting for Universal Credit
(December 2018)Download now
- Digital exclusion is a significant challenge, with access as well as capability a key issue.
- Waiting for payments to start causes financial hardship and emotional distress.
- There is considerable vulnerability amongst early Universal Credit claimants
Is the government listening?
Like hell – pardon padre – they are.
The Tory Government’s responses to us over Universal Credit are scarcely believable
Liverpool Echo.
When we asked about the fears and concerns of residents in the deprived areas of West Derby and Everton – where UC is rolling out this month – Work and Pensions Minister Alok Sharma painted a very rosy picture, stating: “Universal Credit is central to our commitment to help families improve their lives by moving into work.
“We know it’s working – with Universal Credit people are moving into work faster and staying in work longer than under the old system.
“And now we are rolling it out to a wider range of people in a safe and controlled way.
“In Everton and West Derby single jobseekers are already receiving support from their dedicated work coach to find employment or increase their hours and earnings.
“Now, all types of claimants will be able to benefit from the improved, personalised, one-to-one support that Universal Credit offers.”
The Echo, to their credit had done some serious digging into the dirt.
The problems with UC have been well documented and include delays in handing over vital cash, sanctions for simple mistakes and there simply not being enough money in the system.
We have told you about the man forced to eat out of supermarket bins because the jobcentre messed up his appointment.
Then there was the Bootle mum who suffers with agoraphobia – and doesn’t want to wake up most mornings because she can’t afford to feed her kids.
The problems with UC have been well documented and include delays in handing over vital cash, sanctions for simple mistakes and there simply not being enough money in the system.
We have told you about the man forced to eat out of supermarket bins because the jobcentre messed up his appointment.
Then there was the Bootle mum who suffers with agoraphobia – and doesn’t want to wake up most mornings because she can’t afford to feed her kids.
Their comment, in these conditions, is pretty mild,
Christmas is Coming and….. Universal Credit leads Revival of Christmas Day in the Workhouse.
Coming near you!
Local newspapers and on-line local sites have come into their own over the Universal Credit scandal.
Here are some stories today:
Universal Credit is threatening to break this city – THIS is how Liverpool is fighting back
Liverpool Echo.
Scousers from all walks of life coming out to support those affected by problem-hit benefit system.
Vulnerable families across Liverpool are bracing themselves for the full impact of Universal Credit – a benefit reform that is already pushing people into poverty.
This week, Job Centres in the deprived areas of Everton and West Derby switched claimants over to the troubled system, despite voices from all over imploring the government to halt the roll-out after the many problems that have been reported.
In Liverpool, the country’s 2nd most destitute city, people are taking things into their own hands to help out the most vulnerable neighbours -they know that to sit, wait and hope for a change of heart from this government would be living in fantasy land.
Manchester Evening News.
It takes five weeks to apply for the benefit.
WalesOnline.
The existence of food banks is a national disgrace
Let’s be quite clear about the increase in foodbank usage: it’s do with government welfare policy and the implementation of Universal Credit.
And there is this, from the out-of-work’s essential daily read, the ‘I’.
A mother explains how she is trying to make Christmas special for her disabled daughter despite having to sell her belongings
And the cold, bare walls are bright
With garlands of green and holly,
And the place is a pleasant sight;
For with clean-washed hands and faces,
In a long and hungry line
The paupers sit at the table,
For this is the hour they dine.
And the guardians and their ladies,
Although the wind is east,
Have come in their furs and wrappers,
To watch their charges feast;
To smile and be condescending,
Put pudding on pauper plates.
To be hosts at the workhouse banquet
They’ve paid for — with the rates.
Government Tries to Solve Housing Benefit (Local Housing Allowance) Universal Credit Disaster.
Looks Complicated and is…
The latest in a long run of stories about Universal Credit:
Edinburgh families forced to wait five weeks to receive Universal Credit
FAMILIES face being left without cash over Christmas when Universal Credit starts being rolled out in Edinburgh on Wednesday.
Claimants will be forced to wait five weeks before they receive the new benefit, meaning first payments will not be made until January.
The shake-up is expected to mean more people relying on foodbanks and also lead to a rise in rent arrears.
Green councillor Susan Rae said: “The immediate impact is debt because the gap people have to wait for payment will throw people into rent arrears.
The DWP says,
You could get Housing Benefit to help you pay your rent if you’re on a low income.
Use a benefits calculator to check if you can get Housing Benefit before you apply. You may need to claim Universal Credit instead.
Housing Benefit can pay for part or all of your rent. How much you get depends on your income and circumstances.
You can apply for Housing Benefit whether you’re unemployed or working.
And,
The housing element of Universal Credit
When people are moved onto Universal Credit, the single payment for their household will include a ‘housing element’. This will replace the help they currently get from Housing Benefit.
Universal Credit – including the housing element – is paid monthly in arrears.
Direct payment of rent – what is it and when is it coming in?
If you’re a registered social landlord and you receive your tenants’ rent directly from your local council, this will change under Universal Credit. Instead, tenants will receive their ’housing element’ direct and be responsible for paying it to you themselves.
Before the new system comes in, some tenants who are not yet claiming Universal Credit might be selected to start receiving their Housing Benefit payment direct.
The Department for Work and Pensions has committed to consult with social landlords before deciding whether to move their tenants onto direct payments. They will take into account any information you provide about your tenants’ ability to manage with direct payments.
If your tenant can’t manage their rent payments
A tenant can ask to have their housing payments switched to the landlord for a period of time while they get the support they need to get their money under control.
If a tenant has rent arrears, then, as their landlord, you can ask for the rent payments to be temporarily switched to you.
When Amber Rudd became the latest in a long list of DWP Ministers she said (Sky 23rd of November).
The new work and pensions secretary also said she was going to review the five-week wait time for new claimants to receive their benefits; payment systems for the housing element of Universal Credit; access to cash and the repayment of upfront loans.
She said: “We need to give [claimants] more confidence in the fact that they can access cash immediately.
“You know people are nervous about moving from legacy benefits to Universal Credit because they cannot afford quite often to be without cash for a few days, a week, two weeks, three weeks.
“I have to make sure that they can have confidence in access in earlier.”
It does not take a genius to work out that with money in your hand, when you have little, it is tempting to spend on other things than rent.
But there are other problems:
If you live in a private sector property, it may not cover your full rent as it will take account of where you live and, if you are under age 35, whether you are expected to share accommodation.
If you live in a council or housing association property you will be asked about the number of bedrooms you have to compare with how many you are thought to need, to see if you are under occupying the property.
And there is a cap on the rent anybody can get.
Which seems reasonable but with rents in some cities…
So you can be out of pocket in the first place.
So, this is the Government’s latest attempt to solve some of these multiple problems by patching up relations with the (better) landlords.
Inside Housing today reports:
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) will be promoting its Universal Credit landlord portal with a six-week social media campaign, starting today.
The portal allows social landlords to ‘verify’ claimants’ rent, which makes it easier for claimants to set up a claim for the housing elements of the benefit payment swiftly.
It also allows landlords to make a request for tenants to be switched back onto the direct payments arrangement, where the rental payments are paid directly to them rather than to the tenant.
This is the case for legacy housing benefit, but is a key reform introduced by the Universal Credit system.
There are currently 538 registered landlords from the social rented sector using the portal.
Justin Tomlinson, minister for family support, housing and child maintenance, said: “The landlord campaign aims to increase awareness of the ways landlords can support Universal Credit, and receive their payments in time. It’s fantastic we’ve signed up 538 registered landlords from the social rented sector already – the feedback we’ve had so far has been overwhelmingly positive.”
“The campaign is spearheaded by partners in the sector and features real life case studies from landlords who explain in their own words their experience of working with the Department of Work and Pensions to support tenants who are claiming Universal Credit.”
A spokesperson for housing association Riverside said: “The landlord portal allows us to verify tenants’ rent and offer support to them early in the Universal Credit process.”
When social landlords enrol with the landlord portal they are invited to accept ‘Trusted Partner status’, allowing them to apply for alternative payment arrangements such as managed payments.
MPs hit out at “pointlessly cruel” Benefit Sanctions Regime.
Sanctions Regime Remains in Place.
As I was walking out from my gaff this morning I saw a poster for today’s edition of the East Anglian Daily Times.
This is the story:
Children turn to emergency handouts as foodbank demand soars
Thousands of children in Suffolk and Essex are relying on emergency handouts from foodbanks, it can be revealed.
More than 1,500 youngsters turned to emergency food handouts in Suffolk from April 1 to September 30, up from 1,004 in the same period last year.
And the figure was even higher in Essex, with 6,338 children receiving three-day emergency food supplies at Trussell Trust foodbanks, up from 5,514.
The hard-hitting data, released by the organisation today, has seen volunteers warn of an impending “debt crisis” which could plunge even more families into poverty.
Problems with Universal Credit are being blamed for driving such an increase in foodbank use.
“It is unprecedented and the situation only seems to be getting worse,” warned Maureen Reynel, owner of the independent Ipswich foodbank FIND. “For a lot of families, it’s the impossible choice of whether to eat or heat their homes. Foodbanks are their lifeline.
By no coincidence whatsoever this is the main story about Universal Credit today:
MPs call for review of ‘pointlessly cruel’ benefit sanctions
Guardian. Patrick Butler.
Work and pensions committee concludes that current scheme carries too high a human cost.
A cross-party group of MPs has called for a review of the government’s controversial benefit sanctions regime after concluding that it was arbitrary, punitive and at times “pointlessly cruel”.
The Commons work and pensions committee inquiry said the human cost of stopping benefit payments to claimants judged to have breached job centre rules was too high and there was scant evidence that it helped or incentivised people to get a job.
It called for people with disabilities and chronic health conditions who have limited capability for work to be exempt from sanctions and said penalties for single parents and care leavers should be vastly reduced.
“We have heard stories of terrible and unnecessary hardship from people who’ve been sanctioned. They were left bewildered and driven to despair at becoming, often with their children, the victims of a sanctions regime that is at times so counterproductive it just seems pointlessly cruel,” said the committee’s chair, Frank Field.
……
A five-year academic study of sanctions published in May found that they were ineffective at getting jobless people into work and were more likely to push those affected into poverty, ill health or even survival crime.
The Department for Work and Pensions said: “We’re committed to ensuring that people get the benefits they’re entitled to, but it is reasonable that people have to meet certain requirements in return for payments. Sanctions are only used in the minority of cases when someone doesn’t meet these requirements without a good reason, and work coaches will continue to offer support to claimants to identify and help resolve the issues that lead to that.”
The Independent is even more direct:
Ministers broke promise to review ‘pointlessly cruel’ system for benefit sanctions, MPs say
No evaluation carried out despite 2013 pledge – and repeated warnings of people being pushed into poverty.
Ministers have broken a promise to review the “pointlessly cruel” system for imposing sanctions on benefit claimants, a damning report by MPs warns today.
No evaluation has been carried out despite a pledge made back in 2013, it says – and despite repeated warnings of people being pushed into poverty after being wrongly stripped of benefits.
Meanwhile, the troubled expansion of universal credit has sparked a fresh rise in the number of sanctions – including on the sick and disabled, single parents and care leavers.
…
Among the people who told the committee about the suffering caused by sanctions were:
* Jen, a wheelchair user forced to “sofa surf” and sleep in a college library for an entire year – including through her exams – when she was wrongly sanctioned for failing to attend a jobcentre appointment.
The jobcentre had told her it was acceptable to miss an appointment that clashed with an A-level exam, but she still had her benefits stopped for almost one yea
* Luke, who was sanctioned after missing a jobcentre appointment because he had been admitted to hospital with severe epileptic seizures.
He was sanctioned for failing to show “good reason for missing his appointment” – a decision only overturned after a media outcry.
* Samantha, a single parent forced to switch to part-time working because of a lack of childcare and stress, who was sanctioned for “voluntarily leaving employment”.
Her income fell from £800 per month to £300, forcing her to rely on food parcels from friends and to beg for money.
Here is the Work and Pensions Committee summary:
For a long time, the UK’s out-of-work benefits have been framed in terms of responsibilities and rights, from which derives a system of conditionality and sanctions. There are certain things the state expects you to do as a condition of receiving out-of-work benefits; if you fail to do those things your benefit may be stopped. The Committee does not believe in unconditional benefits for those who are capable of moving into work. But unfair and disproportionate application of the current sanctions regime is causing unintended consequences.
The objective of conditionality and sanctions is to motivate people to engage with support and to take active steps to move them closer to work. But the evidence on the role of sanctions in achieving this goal is patchy. At the very least, it calls for more research. The Welfare Reform Act 2012 and subsequent changes have made sanctions longer, more severe and applicable to more people than ever before. The previous Government did not know the impact of these changes in 2012 and, six years later, it is still unknown. What we do know is that sanction rates are higher under Universal Credit than under the legacy system, and when applied inappropriately can have profoundly negative effects on people’s financial and personal well-being.
The failure to evaluate the 2012 reforms is unacceptable. It is time for the Government urgently to evaluate the effectiveness of reforms to welfare conditionality and sanctions introduced since 2012, including an assessment of sanctions’ impact on people’s financial and personal well-being. Furthermore, until the Government can point to robust evidence that longer sanctions are more effective, higher level sanctions should be reduced to two, four and six months for first, second and subsequent failures to comply.
Some groups of people are disproportionately vulnerable to, and affected by, the withdrawal of their benefit. These include single parents, care leavers and people with an impairment or health condition. The Government must develop a better understanding of how sanctions affect employment outcomes for vulnerable claimants. Only strong causal relationships can justify these groups’ continued inclusion in the sanctions regime. In the meantime, we recommend that people who are the responsible carer for a child under the age of 5, or a child with demonstrable additional needs and care costs, and care leavers under the age of 25, only ever have 20% of their benefit withheld if sanctioned. As well as reduced sanctions, care leavers need better support. So we recommend that the Government review working practices between local authority personal advisers and work coaches to ensure they are collaborating as effectively as possible to support care leavers. It must also introduce a way of identifying care leavers within the benefits system to allow ongoing monitoring of their experiences, including of sanctions, and to inform further tailored support.
Of all the evidence we received, none was more compelling than that against the imposition of conditionality and sanctions on people with a disability or health condition. It does not work. Worse, it is harmful and counterproductive. We recommend that the Government immediately stop imposing conditionality and sanctions on anyone found to have limited capability for work, or who presents a valid doctor’s note (Fit Note) stating that they are unable to work, including those who present such a note while waiting for a Work Capability Assessment. Instead, it should work with experts to develop a programme of voluntary employment support.
We still believe that support for people in work to increase their hours and earnings has the potential to be revolutionary. But its promise risks being undermined by hasty roll-out of a policy not grounded in robust evidence. The Randomised Controlled Trial showed sanctions had no effect on in-work claimants’ outcomes and work coaches are not yet equipped to get decisions right every time for every claimant. Sanctioning people who are working is too great a risk for too little return. We recommend that the Department does not proceed with conditionality and sanctions for in-work claimants until full roll-out of Universal Credit is complete. Even then, the policy should only be introduced on the basis of robust evidence that it will be effective at driving progress in work. In the meantime, the Department should focus on providing in-work claimants with the right support.
Under Universal Credit, a sanction incurred under one conditionality regime continues to apply even if the claimant’s circumstances change and they are no longer able, or required, to look for work. At that point, the argument that the sanction will incentivise them towards work no longer holds water. The sanction becomes little more than a seemingly unfair punishment for non-compliance. We therefore recommend that sanctions are cancelled when a claimant’s change in circumstance means they are no longer subject to the requirement that led to their sanction in the first place.
Under Universal Credit, the maximum amount someone can be sanctioned is 100% of their standard allowance. In theory, housing and children elements are therefore protected. But in reality, this is not always the case: If someone is receiving less than their full standard allowance because of deductions, such as for rent arrears, a sanction representing 100% of their standard allowance eats into other elements. It is a technical glitch, but it puts housing and children’s welfare at risk and must be resolved with the greatest urgency. We therefore recommend that the Government immediately ensures any deductions from standard allowances are postponed for the duration of any sanction imposed to ensure that the children and housing elements are always protected.
Setting the right policy is important. But so too is implementing it on the ground. Over and again we heard stories of it going horribly wrong, resulting in inappropriate sanctions causing unjustified and sustained hardship. We heard about people being asked to comply with impossible requirements.
We also heard that work coaches were not consistently applying the exemptions (‘easements’) they have the power to use. Claimants did not know they existed and work coaches had neither the time nor the expertise to ask questions about every avenue of someone’s life. We recommend that the Department develop a standard set of questions, covering all possible easements, which work coaches routinely ask claimants when agreeing their Claimant Commitment. The Department should also review and improve information about easements made available to claimants.
If a work coach thinks someone has failed to comply with their Claimant Commitment they raise a doubt and put in motion the wheels that could lead to a sanction. We recognise that giving work coaches and decision-makers the right amount of flexibility is a challenge. But we heard too many stories of poor decision-making to believe the current system has got it right. The first hurdle is deciding what counts as ‘good reason’ for failing to comply, which is currently a judgment call for work coaches. This is a big ask when the consequences of getting it wrong can be so great. What’s more, it inevitably means that claimants in similar circumstances are treated inconsistently. But this could be easily fixed by carefully drafted regulations. We therefore recommend that the Department introduce regulations on what counts as good reason, which still allow work coaches to exercise judgment in any situation not included.
If a work coach concludes someone did not have good reason for failing to comply, they must refer them for a sanction. We heard repeatedly, however, that the welfare system is being reformed to reflect the world of work. But we do not think it is fair or proportionate for someone’s first mistake to be met with the harshest penalty, either in the world of work or benefits system. We welcome the Government’s announcement to trial a system of warnings, instead of sanctions, for first sanctionable failures, but it only applies to narrow circumstances. We therefore recommend that the Government use the trial as an opportunity to learn lessons, while taking steps towards introducing warnings, instead of sanctions, for every claimant’s first failure to comply.
We recognise the importance of an independent decision-maker to impose the sanction. It is, however, a missed opportunity that a work coach’s relationship with the claimant and insight into their circumstances—supposedly at the very heart of Universal Credit—plays no role at this stage of the process. What is more, a sanction can only be challenged once the decision has been made, by which stage the damage has been done, and the burden of proof falls to the claimant. We recommend that when a work coach refers a claimant for a sanction they are required to include a recommendation on whether a sanction should be imposed based on their knowledge of the claimant and their circumstances. Decision-makers should contact the claimant to let them know their ‘provisional decision’ and, if it is to impose a sanction, the evidence on which this is based. The claimant should then have 30 days to challenge the provisional decision or actively opt not to provide further evidence.
Claimants can challenge the final decision to impose a sanction first, through Mandatory Reconsideration, and then via First-tier Tribunal. But in the absence of any commitment from the Department on how long these decisions will take, people can endure the hardship of a sanction for weeks on end. This is all the more painful if, after all that time, the sanction is overturned. We therefore recommend that the Department commit to a timetable for making decisions about sanctions at Mandatory Reconsideration and appeal.
Hardship payments are made to those who would otherwise be left with nothing when sanctioned. But recovering that payment at a rate of 40% of someone’s standard allowance imposes further significant hardship. It is neither necessary for the Government—as it appears not to be financially motivated to recover the money—nor affordable for those who have been recognised as at risk of extreme poverty. Our final recommendation is therefore that the Department issues revised guidance to all work coaches to ensure hardship repayments are set at a rate that is affordable for the claimant, with the default being 5% of their standard allowance.
