moose1982 wrote: »
I think the resistance is being met because DWP often make mistakes with payments and the biggest mistake is non-payment when there was no reason for the non-payment. I've had this happen to me (I think) three times in 18 months with no change in circumstances at all. If a payment was missed by them then the claimant would have to wait 4 weeks rather than just 2 at the moment.
Ideally everyone would have enough savings to cover that period if/when it comes up, but the reality is that with universal credit covering housing payments as well as JSA/ESA, it could make some landlords quite unhappy and then unwilling to take on future benefit claimants as tenants.
Fiver29 wrote: »
When the DWP made a mistake with my JSA it was rectified in a couple of days, I didn't have to wait a fortnight. Same thing happens to workers too. My wages were incorrect and late 4 months in a row, so I had to wait. As BigAunty says, it's life.
BigAunty wrote: »
Still scratching my head over the resistance to benefit payments being made in the type of periodic payments common in employment. The smaller the gap between benefit behaviour and employment behaviour, the easier it will be to transition between the two? I agree that delays in payments cause total chaos and it would great to see swifter processing of claims.
The move from HB to LHA being paid directly to the tenant was implemented precisely to promote personal responsibility for budgeting, financial inclusion, help remove barriers to work.
So why is it any different in benefit payments mirror much more closely what happens with employees?
I'm aware what a pain it is to budget standing orders and direct debits with the payment cycles into a bank account. For example, I had around 8 direct debits coming out of my account on the 1st of the month while my employer paid me every 4 weeks. As there's 13 weeks in a 3 monthly period, it meant very little correspondence between pay dates and my major bills. So I had to pay closer attention to my finances but that's life.
john539 wrote: »
Many on benefits won't have spare cash to cover the monthly period, because benefits cover the bare minimum.
Percy1983 wrote: »
Don't forget the bare minimum does include fags, cider and the most recent xbox 360 games.
john539 wrote: »
It's an idea from one man who hasn't had to live on them.
Your mistake is to think it's just about money, it isn't.
looby75 wrote: »
I really don't know why I'm bothering to reply to such an idiotic post but.......since when?
Having to go on benefits was the main reason I gave up smoking, I don't drink cider and I've never bought a xbox 360 game in my life.
neverdespairgirl wrote: »
I'd like to think that we don't live in a nanny state where people think their pocket money has to be given out in daily amounts, as they can't look after themselves.
New MSE poll findings
Get £100s or £1,000s back for being mis-sold
Selected items, via code