Anyone heard of this?

[Sparks_]

http://www.katebelgrave.com/2015/02/well-disallow-your-housing-benefit-for-two-weeks-when-youre-sanctioned-wtf-is-going-on-here/

 

JSA advisors saying they can stop your housing/council tax benefit for 2 weeks if you get sanctioned?

[essexmat]

http://www.katebelgrave.com/2015/02/well-disallow-your-housing-benefit-for-two-weeks-when-youre-sanctioned-wtf-is-going-on-here/

 

JSA advisors saying they can stop your housing/council tax benefit for 2 weeks if you get sanctioned?

 

 

Yes, that would be great wouldn't it? Put a person in to poverty by not giving them the funds to eat or heat their home and then stop their housing benefit so they are at risk of eviction. Way to go at helping people out - mind you, we are talking about a Tory regime so nothing would surprise me

[Mr.P]

With Universal Credit, I believe it will include HB, so once everyone moves over to UC, the prospects of losing everything is a serious possibility. As the current system stands, collect a sanction, and the DWP will inform the L.A. of a "change of circumstances" will will automatically see HB/CTR being suspended. But as the blogger points out, this is usually reinstated & backdated on a nil income declaration being made.

[margaretwebb1]

Under universal credit they can only sanction the personal allowance component not the housing costs component

[sadone]

Well going by what I've read on rightsnet it all goes. Thus giving this 'government' even more power over a claimant.

[SabreSheep]

As noted, the conditionality rules are broadly the same as they are currently.

Universal Credit will also, for the first time, introduce “in work” conditionality for those who earn below an earnings threshold. The threshold will be set at the equivalent of working full time at the national minimum wage (i.e. £212.80), although it will be lower for claimants with caring commitments. This in-work conditionality is intended to help to strengthen the incentive to increase hours and earnings for those on low incomes.

Under the Universal Credit, the penalties for failing to comply the conditionality regime have been made significantly stronger:

 

• Failure to prepare for work (for those in the full conditionality category) will lead to payments ceasing until claimants re-comply. Initially payments will be ceased for one week, then two weeks and then four and so on.
  
• Failure to actively seek work or be available to start work will lead to ceased payments for one month and then three months for a second offence.
  
• Failure to apply for a job, accept a reasonable job offer, or attend the new Mandatory Work Activity will lead to payments being ceased for three months.
  

Sanctions will not be applied to the whole Universal Credit award. Rather, it will apply only to the equivalet amount sanctioned under the current benefits system, so equivalent to Jobseeker's Allowance or Employment and Support Allowance.

Where claimants fail to comply on numerous occasions, they can face sanctions of up to three years – although hardship funds will be available to cover part of the sanction period.

[sadone]

Well even the CAB are concerned/confused and I don't blame them.

 

http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/4129/

[SabreSheep]

30 January 2015, 02:30 pm #15

 

Andrew Dutton

forum member

Derbyshire Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 430

Joined: 12 October 2012

 

 

Another thought -

Claimant is sanctioned and the standard allowance is taken away. The ‘housing’ element remains in payment so they have some UC coming in.

[SabreSheep]

As per your thread.

Sanction is applied to the standard allowence only, not the housing element

 

30 January 2015, 07:06 pm #16

 

sanwyp

forum member

benefit advice officer, three rivers housing association, co durham

Send message

Total Posts: 105

Joined: 18 June 2010

 

 

At a meeting today, DWP reps advised (stressed) that the housing element is protected when a sanctioned applied. I suggested that this would be the case in JSA single claimant…..sanction applied is equivalent to standard personal element….so they are left with the housing element in payment and as pointed out out above will be used to survive until a hardship payment secured (is this repayable?)

I put forward the situation when it is an in work UC claimant and there was still a view that housing element protected. Sure it will all become clearer when the social experiment as outlined by Lord Freud commences in April.

I stand by what I and others have said, we need to think of UC as a whole not part personal part housing costs and the individual is at risk of having a benefit reduced because of the sanction that puts ability to pay rent at risk (if not impossible)

What happens when someone is sanctioned will be very much up to that individual to deal with, although I hope that there will be independent advice readily available to challenge such situations. They will have a reduced income, not sure if data sharing will include DWP advising of sanction which would enable an alert to be given to Social Landlords.

Housing Providers will have to deal with non payment quickly to establish if linked to sanction. Standard arrears letters will not be the answer.

[sadone]

we need to think of UC as a whole not part personal part housing costs and the individual is at risk of having a benefit reduced because of the sanction that puts ability to pay rent at risk (if not impossible)

 

This is very concerning to say the least.

 

Sure it will all become clearer when the social experiment as outlined by Lord Freud commences in April.

 

We can only hope.

[Mr.P]

Sanctions will not be applied to the whole Universal Credit award. Rather, it will apply only to the equivalet amount sanctioned under the current benefits system, so equivalent to Jobseeker's Allowance or Employment and Support Allowance.

 

All well and good until the rules are changed on the pretext of "saving money" or some other excuse. I also suspect that due to the complexities of the calculations when everyone is on UC, mistakes will be made and a sanction will apply to a greater part of the benefit that it should.

 

It is going to end in tears - The ones to suffer will be those in part time and/or low paid work as well as the sick, disabled, and unemployed.

[SabreSheep]

that is looking at the impact of the sanction eg if the personal allowance is removed via sanction then the claimant will use the remaining credit to pay bills as opposed to using it to pay rent.

For claimants now that receive separate housing benefit directly, that is no change.

 

So to sum up.

 

A sanction will not reduce the housing component paid to the claimant.

[SabreSheep]

All well and good until the rules are changed on the pretext of "saving money" or some other excuse. I also suspect that due to the complexities of the calculations when everyone is on UC, mistakes will be made and a sanction will apply to a greater part of the benefit that it should.

 

It is going to end in tears - The ones to suffer will be those in part time and/or low paid work as well as the sick, disabled, and unemployed.

 

Until they change the rules to reduce the housing element, that is just supposition and is as relevent as me saying that they may change the rules to make sanctioned claimants sacrifice their first born child to a debtors prison.

 

However, your lack of faith in DWP competence to get it right is very well placed

[sadone]

All well and good until the rules are changed on the pretext of "saving money" or some other excuse. I also suspect that due to the complexities of the calculations when everyone is on UC, mistakes will be made and a sanction will apply to a greater part of the benefit that it should.

 

It is going to end in tears - The ones to suffer will be those in part time and/or low paid work as well as the sick, disabled, and unemployed.

 

This. Do really expect these shower of b*stards to play fair? If so I have this bridge I'd like to sell you.

 

Until they change the rules to reduce the housing element, that is just supposition and is as relevent as me saying that they may change the rules to make sanctioned claimants sacrifice their first born child to a debtors prison.

 

Don't give them ideas.

[SabreSheep]

Thats fine, ill take your bridge and sell it to someone else before i take delivery XD

 

In meantime, of course they are not going to play fair. Thats where we come in to help educate, support and assist. However the OP wanted clarification on a point based on current rules. Answer has been provided.

[sadone]

Well we're see what Fraud has to say in April.

 

Just remember though we're now in the power of a government that wants there to be no welfare help given at all If they had their way, and so will fight and coerce the rules to fulfill that ideology so imo It's always best to plan for the worst.

Edited February 11, 2015 by honeybee13
Pejorative/defamatory terms removed.

[Lapsed Workaholic]

As I understand it the current position for Job Seeker's Allowance (JSA) benefit claimants who have not as yet been transferred to Universal Credit (UC) is that the DWP pays JSA directly into the claimant's bank account, and the Local Council's Housing Office pays Housing Benefit (HB) either directly into the claimant's bank account or, where agreed, directly to the landlord.

 

(ESA claimants, also as far as I am aware, are similarly treated with regard to their benefit).

 

Now, UC is being exhorted as a means of simplifying benefit payments by creating one 'Universal' payment to replace a multiplicity of separate payments as was the case before UC. JSA and HB are to be included in this single 'Universal' payment.

 

My first question is:

 

What body will be responsible for paying the claimant's new UC, which will include JSA and HB combined, into his/her bank account?

 

Perhaps someone who is already on UC might know the answer.

 

A definitive answer to that question will determine the next question/questions.

[antone]

As I understand it the current position for Job Seeker's Allowance (JSA) benefit claimants who have not as yet been transferred to Universal Credit (UC) is that the DWP pays JSA directly into the claimant's bank account, and the Local Council's Housing Office pays Housing Benefit (HB) either directly into the claimant's bank account or, where agreed, directly to the landlord.

 

(ESA claimants, also as far as I am aware, are similarly treated with regard to their benefit).

 

Now, UC is being exhorted as a means of simplifying benefit payments by creating one 'Universal' payment to replace a multiplicity of separate payments as was the case before UC. JSA and HB are to be included in this single 'Universal' payment.

 

My first question is:

 

What body will be responsible for paying the claimant's new UC, which will include JSA and HB combined, into his/her bank account?

 

Perhaps someone who is already on UC might know the answer.

 

A definitive answer to that question will determine the next question/questions.

 

UC will be paid by the DWP. That will include the housing element currently covered by HB and paid by the council.