Ipswich Unemployed Action.

Campaigning for Unemployed Rights.

Archive for the ‘jobseekers allowance’ Category

Former DWP Chief Stephen Crabb calls to make the £20 addition for Universal Credit permanent and extend it to legacy benefits.

Equal Benefits for Claimants! Raise Legacy Benefits in Line with Universal Credit Rates! | Ipswich Unemployed Action.

Stephen Crabb, “legacy benefits like JSA, ESA and IS should be raised to match the universal credit increase.”

This is the benefits story of the day:

‘allo, ‘allo, what ‘ave we here?

Read the article…..

As a first step, the government should make permanent the additional £20 per week for the universal credit standard allowance that it brought in to strengthen social security during the crisis. Removing it next spring, as currently planned, will amount to a painful cut in income for many people still struggling to come to terms with the loss of their jobs and who have found the transition from furlough to benefits a very hard landing indeed.

In parallel, the personal allowance of so-called legacy benefits like JSA, ESA and IS should be raised to match the universal credit increase. This is particularly important for those with disabilities, and their carers, who make up most of the people remaining on these benefits. It’s just not right that some of the most vulnerable people have not seen equivalent protection.

My Government Must Do More To Help Working Poor Cope With Covid

We should also look at extensions to the furlough scheme, writes Stephen Crabb MP.

Meanwhile this rumbles on.

The Work and Pensions Committee, a Commons Select Committee, is continuing its investigation into Universal Credit.

There next evidence hearing session is on the 2nd of September,

Universal Credit: the wait for a first payment

Inquiry

Universal Credit has a “baked in” wait for the first payment. After completing all of the stages of their application, claimants must then wait for at least five weeks to receive their award. They can ask for an Advance payment if they need money more urgently, which they then pay back out of their future Universal Credit payments.

Many organisations have concluded that the five week wait for a first Universal Credit payment must be reduced or eliminated entirely. There is, however, a lack of agreement about how this might be most effectively—and affordably—achieved. Some of the options suggested include:

  • Scrapping the five week wait for all claimants: for example, by making the Advance non-repayable;
  • Offering non-repayable Advances to some claimants: for example, those considered vulnerable;
  • Allowing more flexibility for the start of a claim to be backdated;
  • Extending run on payments to cover all legacy benefits;
  • Substantially reducing the rate at which Advance Payments—the main existing mitigation measure—are paid back, to help claimants better manage their money;
  • Paying UC two-weekly, like many legacy benefits, rather than monthly.

The Committee wants to help the Government to better understand the upsides and downsides of these options, and explore other possible solutions.

Written by Andrew Coates

August 31, 2020 at 3:04 pm

Universal Credit Claims Double in Two Months.

How we design content for the Universal Credit digital service ...

Online Only.

The Mirror has just reported.

3million people have now made a Universal Credit claim since coronavirus hit

Total claims between March 16 and June 2 are 2,976,140 individuals, in 2.3million households.

The milestone suggests the number of people on the six-in-one benefit has almost doubled in just a few months.

In mid-February there were 2.6million households on Universal Credit as part of a decade-long rollout set to last until 2024.

But the number of people being forced onto the welfare state for the first time has soared amid the pandemic.

Not all those who put in a claim will receive money under UC.

The Mirror revealed that of the first 800,000 post-coronavirus UC claims in late March, 264,000 had not yet resulted in a payment.

Of those, half had an award of £0 in their first month due to their earnings being deemed too high. The other half were either deemed ineligible for Universal Credit or withdrew their claim.

DWP officials insisted large numbers of those people will have joined other government support packages like the furlough scheme.

Not to mention:

And,

And,

‘Legacy Benefit’ payments have still not been upgraded to include the extra £20 a week that Universal Credit claimants get (if they get it). 

The scandal of this discrimination against the poor continues to fester.

Our contributors have commented that Job Search on Universal Credit or the much lower ‘legacy benefit’ JSA, is hard.

But those kind folks at the DWP think of everything:

Looking for work? jobhelp is a good place to start.

Despite the disruption caused by the coronavirus outbreak, there are still jobs out there to apply to. We’re here to help you get started.

In the meantime this rumour is rife:

 

Compulsory Employment “Schemes” for Jobseeker’s Claiming Council Tax Support.

Image result for workfare

Is Workfare For Council Tax Support part of the new Austerity Agenda?

Council Tax support is falling apart.

This affects people on Job Seeker’s Allowance, and now, Universal Credit,.

Hard.

You can expect a great deal of thieving from Tory Councils.

Barnet led the way:

Everyone of working age has to pay a minimum contribution of 20% from 01 April 2015 (the contribution for the period 01 April 2013 to 31 March 2015 will remain at 8.5% as agreed in January 2013) of their Council Tax liability unless they are in a protected group. (War pensioners, war widow(er)s and people who receive Armed Forces compensation scheme payments will not have to pay the minimum contribution).

This 20% rule is pretty widespread now.

A hefty sum, around £287.8 a year (National average, band D,  Band D property to £1,439).

In Labour run Ipswich, by contrast,

In Ipswich, all people of working age have to pay at least 8.5% of their Council Tax bill, regardless of their income. From 1st April 2018, this will reduce to 5%.

But now we learn Leeds Labour Council is running this compulsory scheme.

Personal work support programme

If you are claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance and have been claiming Council Tax support for 26 weeks or more, you will be offered a place on the personal work support programme.

You will have to complete this programme to keep receiving Council Tax support unless you’re part of one of the exempt or protected groups (PDF 1.2MB)​​.

You will be required to complete five review appointments with one of our employment advisors who are able to support all aspects of looking for work which includes:

  • Help to update your CV
  • Advice and support for applying for vacancies online
  • Advice on how to find the type of work you are looking for
  • The latest job vacancy information
  • Free access to our computers
  • Help with any health, money, benefit or housing concerns that you may have

To book an appointment with an advisor, please call 0113 222 4404.

You can find further information on the package of support available in our Council Tax Support for Jobseekers leaflet (PDF 223KB)​​.

Ipswich Unemployed Action has been informed that there are other councils, some Tory, who have similar schemes.

Some, it is said, involve workfare.

In the opinion of a professional Welfare Adviser this is not legal

Written by Andrew Coates

February 23, 2018 at 3:43 pm

Grenfell Tower Victims, Tower Block Evacuees, and Benefits.

Image result for tower blocks evacuated

As More People Evacuated from Tower Blocks, what will happen to their Benefits? 

Reports on the way the Grenfell Tower victims have, and will be, affected by the benefits system are beginning to appear.

Last Thursday there was this, in the Guardian,

Grenfell residents feared benefit sanctions – they are too used to being ignored

If you’ve followed the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire on social media, one disturbing revelation has stood out: the fear that victims could have their benefits sanctioned because they were not able to get to the jobcentre to sign on.

Incredibly, representatives of local residents who approached local Jobcentre Plus officials and Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) staff in North Kensington report being told that it could “not be guaranteed” that people caught up in the fire and its aftermath would not be penalised if they were unable to sign on.

Last night, when the Guardian approached them for comment, the DWP confirmed that normal jobcentre rules – including financial sanctions routinely issued to claimants who miss appointments – had been suspended indefinitely for former Grenfell Tower tenants and other local residents who claim unemployment benefits.

A local resident who said he was acting on behalf of the community claimed that the DWP only later moved to clarify the position because of pressure on social media. “Once it became clear that there was media attention focused on them, they have finally done the right thing,” he said. “Why should it take shame for them to act? Where is their humanity?”

As anyone who has been put through the Tories’ benefit system knows, “humanity” and the DWP are two things that do not tend to go together. Rather, it’s a department that in recent years has become synonymous with cruelty.

Followed by this,

Former residents of Grenfell Tower will not be exempt from the bedroom tax and the benefit cap, the government has confirmed – although ministers have ordered that any tenants affected are prioritised for special payments to offset any losses.

Guidance from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) says councils should ensure Grenfell tenants hit by welfare reforms should be given so-called discretionary housing payments (DHPs) to protect them from potential housing benefit shortfalls of hundreds of pounds a month.

The government has promised that all Grenfell residents will be rehoused permanently as close as possible to their former home. This week it secured 68 social rented apartments in a new block in Kensington to provide permanent accommodation for those made homeless by the fire.

The guidance is the latest example of ministers moving to soften normal benefit rules for Grenfell residents. Earlier this week it said jobless tenants would not be sanctioned for failing to look for a job, and that a planned roll-out of universal credit in North Kensington next month would be put on hold.

A DWP spokeswoman said: “We have already relaxed benefit rules for anyone affected by the Grenfell Tower fire and our staff are handling people’s claims with sensitivity, understanding and flexibility.

“As part of this, our recent guidance to local authorities is that they should treat these residents as a priority for extra payments to help with their rent if they are rehoused in a larger property.”

But,

….experts said that providing DHP support was not always a permanent solution for tenants affected by welfare reform, especially if Grenfell tenants were allocated permanent homes that were too big and unaffordable under housing benefit rules.

Under the bedroom tax, residents in permanent social housing who are deemed to have more bedrooms than they require are docked housing benefit. In London, bedroom-taxed households typically have shortfalls of around £23 a week.

The benefit cap limits the total amount of benefits paid to out-of-work households to £442 a week in London. In Kensington and Chelsea,  latest figures show that in February 421 residents were capped. The majority suffered a benefit shortfall of £100 a week, though in some cases it was as much as £400 a week.

Discretionary housing payments, as the name implies, are normally given out at the discretion of the council and there is no guarantee that tenants – usually those at risk of homelessness as a result of rent arrears caused by welfare reform – will receive a DHP payment. The DWP guidance suggests councils should relax the usual rules for Grenfell tenants.

Each local authority sets its own criteria to assess DHP claims, with claimants normally having to produce extensive details of bank accounts, savings and loans to justify why they should qualify for financial help to stay in their home. Kensington and Chelsea’s standard five-page form asks claimants to justify why they “need to live at this address in this particular area” and “Are there any reasons preventing you from moving to other accommodation or another area?”.

Although the guidance states that there is no limit to the length of time a DHP award may be made, permanent awards are rare, and are often restricted to a few months.

This week a judge criticised DHPs in a ruling that declared it was unlawful for single parents with children under two to be subject to the benefit cap. Mr Justice Collins said that DHPs were a temporary solution that gave “no peace of mind” to capped tenants and provided an “unsatisfactory safeguard” against homelessness.

He added: “For those such as the claimants who are living on the edge of, if not within, poverty the [DHP] system is simply not working with any degree of fairness.”

Grenfell Tower victims could be hit by the Bedroom Tax in their new homes

The Mirror says: The DWP is scrambling to cover the cost of the hated levy for any victims who move into a bigger flat.

Written by Andrew Coates

June 26, 2017 at 10:33 am

Help to Work a Failure.

As many of us are on schemes for the unemployed, not to say long-term unemployed, and know the insides and outsides of these programmes all too well, this comes as no surprise.

Before reading it bear in mind that the prospect of adding cognitive behavioural therapy to the list of tortures – which include having to listen to people  unable to provide any actual offers of work – they make us undergo is becoming more and more probable.

The picture above, of somebody forced to attend the Jobcentre every single day, and workfare, illustrates why people hate the system as well.

Figures prove Help to Work doesn’t help and doesn’t work

Reports Sentinel News.

  • Compulsory government welfare-to-work scheme has no effect for most people
  • Huge levels of failure to meet targets by companies delivering the programme
  • Help to Work was launched despite a pilot scheme failing

By Chaminda Jayanetti

Newly released government figures show that Help to Work, its flagship welfare-to-work programme for the long-term unemployed, has only seen one in five of the people referred to it progress into even remotely secure jobs.

Help to Work, which includes three intensive schemes, was launched in April 2014 as a compulsory programme for those who had been unemployed for more than two years.

At the time, David Cameron said: “This scheme will provide more help than ever before, getting people into work and on the road to a more secure future.”

But figures published yesterday by the Department for Work and Pensions reveal that of the people referred to Help to Work between April and December 2014, less than half – just 44 percent – went on to spend any time in work at all during the year following their referral.

Thirty percent went on to complete at least 13 weeks in work, and barely 20 percent made it to 26 weeks of work – half a year – in the year after their referral.

In other words, four in every five people referred onto the scheme did not progress to even medium-term work.

It is the first time the DWP has published data on the amount of time spent in work by those on the Help to Work programme. The statistics exclude those who became self-employed, but the figures are nevertheless dire.

Three schemes, all failing

Help to Work comprises three separate schemes, with each long-term Jobseekers Allowance claimant forced on to one of them. If they refuse, their benefits can be docked. The schemes are:

  • Community Work Placements – six-month compulsory unpaid work experience placements of up 30 hours a week, plus up to ten hours of “supported job search activity” every week
  • Mandatory Intervention Regime – claimants receive “intensive support” from Jobcentre staff, who can refer them to other local services and training
  • Daily Work Search Review – claimants have to attend the Jobcentre every single day for up to three months to discuss the job applications they have made

The three schemes saw tens of thousands of people forced onto them between April 2014 and December 2015 – 80,000 on Community Work Placements, 47,000 on Daily Work Searches, and nearly 100,000 on the Mandatory Intervention Regime (which can include people who completed one of the two other schemes).

But nearly two years on from their launch, all three schemes are failing to have a meaningful impact. Under both the Mandatory Intervention Regime and the Daily Work Search Review, around 45 percent of the referred claimants found any paid work (excluding self-employment) in the year after their referral. About 30 percent found 13 weeks of work, and one in five found six months of work.

CWP at the DWP

The worst performance, however, was in the Community Work Programme. Given that this includes six-month placements, it is perhaps unsurprising that only 18 percent of claimants had time to fit in an additional six months of paid work in the year following their referral.

But barely a quarter completed 13 weeks in paid work, and less than two in five of all claimants undertook any paid work at all, excluding self-employment.

The Community Work Programme is the only one of the Help to Work schemes that is delivered by private companies – and their performance has been terrible. Just one of the 18 regional contracts met its target for “short completions” in 2015 – that is where a claimant completes between 12 and 21 weeks of employment after being on the programme.

Just three of 18 contracts met the target for “long completions” – between 22 and 26 weeks of employment – with ten contracts falling well short of expectations. Six of the 18 contracts met the target for job outcomes, where claimants found more than 26 weeks of work.

Seven companies hold the 18 contracts between them – led by G4S with six and Seetec with five. Ten of the contracts – more than half – missed every single target.

A bad idea from birth

The DWP conducted a fully-fledged pilot scheme in 2013, which was widely seen as a failure – almost as many people who undertook the pilot help to work schemes were still on benefit two years later as those who’d had no support at all. Despite this, the government decided to bring forward implementation of the full Help to Work scheme.

Interestingly, the programme was expected to cost £300m a year, but has in fact come in at £190m in 2014/15 and £230m in 2015/16. This may be because the private companies on the Community Work Programme were paid by results – an initial payment for claimants starting a community work placement, but further payments only if employment outcomes were met. The failure of so many providers to meet their targets may have reduced the scheme’s cost – although the annual burden on the taxpayer remains in the hundreds of millions.

The government announced last year that the Community Work Programme would be abolished from 2017 along with the controversial Mandatory Work Activity programme, which is outside the Help to Work scheme. These will be replaced by a new scheme, the Work and Health Programme, targeted at both disabled people and the long-term unemployed. The conflation of health and work is likely to be the source of ongoing controversy.

Written by Andrew Coates

March 23, 2016 at 11:28 am