Can people really be expected to live on nothing?

[count orlok]

I've looked all over the place and can't find an answer to this, so thought I would ask as there seems to be a knowledgeable lot here. I ask this as i have children and grandchildren that may find themselves ill or out of work, and I really fear for them.

 

I have read and heard a lot about benefit sanctions. Weeks up to even years. From what I have read and understand these sanctions can be applied even where there is no fault.

 

From what I have read it would seem that people could get no income for a period from weeks to years, this seems insane and is clearly only meant to seem that way in order to scare people.

 

Does anyone know what the reduced amounts are for different kinds of benefits, and groups of people? Considering benefits are already paid at level that is considered by the government to be the minimum a person needs to live, are they now saying one can live on less?

[MIKEY DABODEE]

Well on I.S Count, if a person doesnt attend a work focused interview we take twenty percent off their benefit, if they dont attend a second then its another twenty percent

They can keep on not going to their WFIS untill their applicable amount is ten pence.

 

That the least amount of I.S the law says can be left in payment.

But well before that time alarm bells are well ringing on the claim

 

WFIs sanctions can run and run on I.S. There are no time limits.

If a customer has three or fours sanctions in place as soon as they attend the WFI all will be lifted.

Edited June 4, 2012 by MIKEY DABODEE

[SWLABR9]

That's Income Support, I assume, What about JSA or ESA?

[count orlok]

That sort of puts my mind at rest. I read of sanctions for the new UC being for up to 3 years and had images of people having no income for that time. That said, I did a benefit test while I was waiting for my IB migration and it said if i failed to get ESA all I would have to live on was my DLA LRC (being to ill to qualify for JSA); although I would have got HB & CTB.

[flumps1976]

The 3 year sancvtion is for repeated fraud.

JSA can have varying times of sanctions between 1 and 26 weeks however depending on cicumstances you can have 1 sanctioned imposed followed but others.

Until you reach the work programme stage of the claim you can make a claim for hardship for JSA this is a reduced rate and if you fall in to a vunerable group (long term health condition that attracts a disability premium or there isa yound child or pregnant person within the claim) then the hardship is apayable from day 1 of the imposed sanction if no vunerable group then no hardsip payable for the first 14 days of that period of sanction.

Sanctions can run one after the other too so depending on the customer and the sanctions they attract they could permanantly be receiving hardship.

 

Work programme is different and hardship is not payable if you fail to participate and engage with the providers, once you choose to return and particiaote the providers can refer the paperwork back to DMA to request that the sanction is lifted however they can delay this for a no set period until the customer is back and engaging on a regular basis usually the provides attached to the office I work in wait for 4 weeks until the customer is attending as and when required.

[debt4get]

I remember back in the late 70's attending a jobcentre with my ub40 as i was unemployed for about a month...walking into an open office...being able to approach staff...and i could go there anytime for help, advice, etc...now there are big burly security guards, cameras, appointments..and boy dont be late..or you aint gonna get nothing...what a world...you guys in fairness do a good job within a system that is now getting beyond the pale

[osdset]

We could always resurrect the Labour Exchanges, complete with Mr Pugh

[Slatted]

But in answer to the orignal title, yes they can because my friend is having to do just that whilst an investigation is being undertaken. She is/was on ESA. If she were on JSA there would be a hardship payment but she does not qualify as ESA....

 

Also having noted that you await migration information from IB, if you get a decision that says you are fit for work you can always appeal, there is currently a reasonable success rate on this and information can be found on Benefits and Work website. They have background that will help.

 

They expect those deemed "fit" to sign on whilst appeals are dealt with tho, and DLA may also be withdrawn if you are deemed "fit".....so be aware of this...

 

Sanctions on ESA are, I believe, only for as much as the "support" element and not the entire payment (except where allegations of fraud or working whilst claiming apparently).

 

You need also to be aware that migration may require you to participate in the Work Related Activities Group (apparently a high percentage are put in this category, the Support Group is not easy to attain). This will require you to attend WFI and other activities deemed appropriate to get you ready for work!

 

I know it seems mad but that is the system that we are forced to deal with!

[osdset]

Don't worry about sanctions on WRAG, you probably won't get that far. After April next year the government brings in mandatory review before appeal, so the majority that routinely fail the WCA's and try to appeal will enjoy zero benefits until a decision is made, as there is no time limit on the decision maker this could be a very, very long time.

[SWLABR9]

Realistically, apart from a token few, it'll be never. It's the end of the appeal system.

[sadone]

Don't worry about sanctions on WRAG, you probably won't get that far. After April next year the government brings in mandatory review before appeal, so the majority that routinely fail the WCA's and try to appeal will enjoy zero benefits until a decision is made, as there is no time limit on the decision maker this could be a very, very long time.

 

And this utterly terrifies me. So few people know abut whats going to happen (as per with this government) and so by the time it effects them it will be far too late.

 

What with this and this foul and imo completely biased 'sanctioning' policy, people will be forced into even greater despair and poverty.

 

How low can we as a country go before some people start to rebel against all this terrible injustice?

[postggj]

for my own sanity about sanctions,cutting benefit etc

 

i know nothing about the benefit system so i will appologise in advance if barking up the wrong tree.

 

what ever benefit you claim, that is the minimum amount the goverment states you need to live on

 

so how can you take money off the minimum amount which would then be giving people less than they need to live on

 

this must be contrary to the human rights act as we have a welfare state system to stop people on hardsip from going below the minimum level expected to live on

[sadone]

I may have this wrong, but I think benefit policy is exempt from all of that. I know Cameron really anti the whole human rights thing, and know he wants the UK to distance themselves more from it.

 

I'm sure they really don't care what happens to the poorer end of their pollution. Hell, thats been the Tories attitude all along, so no change there I suppose.

[postggj]

may have this wrong, but I think benefit policy is exempt from all of that

 

then can someone please give me a link to the statute legislation that permits the goverment to bypass the human rights act that sets the minimum standards goverments have to abide by

 

it is being able to cut benefits contrary to international law ime interested inn or the goverments own policy on the minimum amount to live on

or is this just the normal accepted conservative tory reterick

[SWLABR9]

It's arguable that the whole of welfare reform is actually illegal, http://gwenhwyfaer.posterous.com/reinstatement which would explain why legal aid for opposing it has been taken away.

[debt4get]

I did have a quick look at the human rights law..but can find no law indicating that the government has a right to give you money to live on....

[Nystagmite]

If people do have benefits taken away, many will turn to crime. How much is that going to cost? More than giving them their £71 a week I imagine.

[postggj]

the issue with the human rights act is that we have a welfare state that we all pay into by a compulsory national insurance system.

statute legislation has decided that xyz is the minimum amount the goverment expects you to live on so why should one member of society be treated less than another by one section by not being given enough money to live on.

 

i am talking of "qualified rights" within the ECHR

 

protecting public health or

safety, preventing crime, and protecting the rights of others.

 

[debt4get]

the issue with the human rights act is that we have a welfare state that we all pay into by a compulsory national insurance system.

statute legislation has decided that xyz is the minimum amount the goverment expects you to live on so why should one member of society be treated less than another by one section by not being given enough money to live on.

 

i am talking of "qualified rights" within the ECHR

 

protecting public health or

safety, preventing crime, and protecting the rights of others.

 

its an interesting point..however, getting a lawyer to put their head above the parapet and not too mention the cost.....but in effect you are correct..a minimum amount should not be removed from anyone regardless...but believe tory's unstated aim is the complete dismantlement of welfare state....and if a lot of us fall by the wayside...well thats the cost that has to be paid...they look at it in the long run it will be beneficial to the country..ie..big business..cheap low cost cowed workers, who can be got rid of at a moments notice..and if they and their families starve..well never mind

[Slatted]

Don't worry about sanctions on WRAG, you probably won't get that far. After April next year the government brings in mandatory review before appeal, so the majority that routinely fail the WCA's and try to appeal will enjoy zero benefits until a decision is made, as there is no time limit on the decision maker this could be a very, very long time.

 

I thought that it was basic rate of ESA or claim JSA if awaiting appeal/review? Is this not right?

When was this gem (above) "announced"?

[debt4get]

I thought that it was basic rate of ESA or claim JSA if awaiting appeal/review? Is this not right?

When was this gem (above) "announced"?

it is at the moment but because of the amount of appeals going through they are removing this 'right'

[antone]

I thought that it was basic rate of ESA or claim JSA if awaiting appeal/review? Is this not right?

When was this gem (above) "announced"?

 

At present if you want to appeal a failed medical decision for ESA, an internal reconsideration is carried out first and automatically before the case is sent to tribunal. This is a sensible arrangement (in theory at least) because it allows the DWP to catch any decision that is obviously wrong, and so avoid clogging up the Tribunals Service with completely fatuous appeals. If the internal reconsideration is favourable to the customer, the appeal doesn't go ahead.

 

Under the new rules, the customer must request a reconsideration first, and will only be able to appeal once the result of that is known. No payment will be made while the reconsideration is carried out, and there will not (as far as we can tell) be any time limit that the DMs must meet for this.

 

Of course, ESA claimants will still be able to claim JSA, but since you need to be fit for work to meet the JSA conditions of entitlement, and many ESA claimants are not...well, you can see the problem here.

[antone]

it is at the moment but because of the amount of appeals going through they are removing this 'right'

 

See my post #22 above - they're not removing the right to appeal. They are, however, making the process more complicated.

[debt4get]

See my post #22 above - they're not removing the right to appeal. They are, however, making the process more complicated.

if it wasnt so serious ..it would almost be laughable...I am wondering if every morning baldrick strolls into no.10 and announces to DC...'i have a cunning plan......'

[osdset]

I thought that it was basic rate of ESA or claim JSA if awaiting appeal/review? Is this not right?

 

At the moment thats how things stand but the government want to change this as part of Clause 100 of the Welfare Reform Bill, they held a consultation which ended on 4th of May, but it's likely that the government will ignore any responses made to the consultation and press ahead regardless next April.