MSE News: Government considers tougher benefit sanctions

BigAunty

I'm confused - is this sanction for ESA claimants applying only to those whose classification means that they are deemed to be capable of some kind of work, albeit it with some support or restrictions on type?

Or is this sanction actually being applied to those who are in the category where they are deemed to be totally unfit for any employment whatsoever?

constantworrier

challfour wrote: »

Of course there is a minimum amount but you have to qualify for it as well as follow the rules to keep getting it!

But I'm a bit confused because if there is a minimum amount how can they take away £71?. If they have established that you are in the WRAG it means you are unable to work at the present time so if you fail to attend an interview they cannot suddenly decide that you are fit for work and leave you with only £28.15 to live on. If they think that you are fit for work they should kick you off esa altogether and onto jsa surely ?.

clemmatis

constantworrier wrote: »

But I'm a bit confused because if there is a minimum amount how can they take away £71?. If they have established that you are in the WRAG it means you are unableto work at the present time so if you fail to attend an interview they cannot suddenly decide that you are fit for work and leave you with only £28.15 to live on. If they think that you are fit for work they should kick you off esa altogether and onto jsa surely ?.

Yes. Officially, the people in ESA WRAG aren't considered capable of work but

"are assessed as being capable of taking steps towards moving into a job immediately and must undertake activities to help them back into the workplace"

(immediately" refers to taking steps.

This would be helpful done properly

constantworrier

challfour wrote: »

I do know what I am talking about! I receive ESA myself and am in the support group.

Being in any group does not mean you can't work - it means that you have acquired at least 15 points in a descriptor test - it's not the same as saying you can't work!

Of course you can work whilst on ESA - have you never heard of the Permitted Work rules?

I know I could do 16 hours a week regularly providing that it is a job that fits in with my problems like office work etc.

When will people stop quoting the fact that if they have passed certain descriptors means that they are unable to do any type of work. It's rubbish!!

Can't understand how you state you can work 16 hours yet you are in the support group. If you are so capable of working surely you don't need esa.

clemmatis

constantworrier wrote: »

Can't understand how you state you can work 16 hours yet you are in the support group.

Because s/he's a troll.

(People in the Support Group are allowed to do certain kinds of work.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Illorinjured/DG_171909 )

BigAunty

BigAunty wrote: »

I'm confused - is this sanction for ESA claimants applying only to those whose classification means that they are deemed to be capable of some kind of work, albeit it with some support or restrictions on type?

Or is this sanction actually being applied to those who are in the category where they are deemed to be totally unfit for any employment whatsoever?

I've popped my query back on top because it's gone unanswered and I'm still a bit baffled about this sanctions malarky.

Is it those that are in the group where there is no requirement for them to seek work that can end up with a sanction?

If so, is this designed to harass them or is it designed to remind them that they need to look to the future to some time when they could be work ready rather than permanently writing themselves off?

I believe under Incapacity Benefit, there was no kind of regular proactive review to see if they could do any type of work or what they might like to do in the future if they become better? They were just left to their own devices, were they not?

earthbound_misfit

BigAunty wrote: »

I do feel the ESA system is too harsh but a revamp is overdue (I am critical of IB because of how it infantilised some of my family members who were allowed to languish on it long-term as alcoholics when the focus should have been on treatment and a return to employment rather than just parking them on the sidelines).

I mean, in my city, 1 in 5 used to be on IB (that's excluding DLA by the way) - hopeless way to deal with 20 % of the working age population who may not be the most attractive to employers but doesn't mean they can't work in some capacity.

Actually the design of ESA is pretty good, for example splitting it into two groups so those closer to the workplace receive appropritae assistance to look into future employment options.
The problem is the ludicrous way it's implemeted - mainly the Work Capability Assessment, which classes very ill/disabled people as fit to work, and those not fit to even think about employment as ready for 'work-related activity'.
Another major flaw is in the 'work-related activity' itself. People are not being given appropriate support, and it's not acknowledged that they are to ill to work right now. Guidance on future employment and training/a little voluntary work (at the right time) is what's needed - not 'work experience' that's basically underpaid employment benefitting employers only.
That's the problem with sanctioning ESA claimants - if they have been assessed as too ill or disabled to work, then you cannot, using any logic, consider it fine for them to work!
The people milking the system are now (or soon will be) either on Jobseeker's Allowance facing a world of sanctions/cattle prods/misery, or have found another way to falsely claim (practically impossible as they'd have to appeal failed assessment and need consultants' evidence etc).
You'd think I was a fraudster if you met me in the street. However, when it is painfully apparent I am not, I'm generally not in the street to be seen by anyone. The bad days/hours are behind closed doors, and I'm not the only one.

Muttleythefrog

BigAunty wrote: »

I've popped my query back on top because it's gone unanswered and I'm still a bit baffled about this sanctions malarky.

Is it those that are in the group where there is no requirement for them to seek work that can end up with a sanction?

If so, is this designed to harass them or is it designed to remind them that they need to look to the future to some time when they could be work ready rather than permanently writing themselves off?

I believe under Incapacity Benefit, there was no kind of regular proactive review to see if they could do any type of work or what they might like to do in the future if they become better? They were just left to their own devices, were they not?

Only those in the WRAG I would think. I've paid little attention to the matter as it looks like it is just an extension (albeit draconian one) of what already can happen... they can force you to take part in Work Related Activity (not seek or take paid jobs) in WRAG and sanction you if you refuse.

I've little doubt that the policy idea is solely political... to give impression of being tough on benefit claimants and save some money (or at least give the impression of such) at the same time.

earthbound_misfit

ps. With regards the need to get government expenditure down:
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/The-Billion-Pound-O-Gram1.jpg
Doesn't have ESA on it but you get the picture... I believe ESA is 12bn a year, not sure if that includes ballsing up assessments and cost of tribunals.
Oh and a little quiz:
http://diaryofabenefitscrounger.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/esa-quiz.html

BigAunty

Muttleythefrog wrote: »

Only those in the WRAG I would think. I've paid little attention to the matter as it looks like it is just an extension (albeit draconian one) of what already can happen... they can force you to take part in Work Related Activity (not seek or take paid jobs) in WRAG and sanction you if you refuse.

I've little doubt that the policy idea is solely political... to give impression of being tough on benefit claimants and save some money (or at least give the impression of such) at the same time.

I assumed that the fuss was because those in the support group, who have no requirement to seek work, were being forced into work placements and interviews?

Right, so basically, is it the case that those in the WRAG group are required to consider themselves as a potential employee so it is hacking off those who are basically contesting that they are or will be work ready?

Meaning, they have been officially deemed as capable of some kind of employment but don't agree with it? So the govt have decided if they miss their appointments then they will be sanctioned like someone on JSA would?

Did they think that they could sidestep the basic criteria for receiving WRAG and just sabotage all steps to try and get them into employment?

According to the Direct Gov website, those in the WRAG know that there are WFI and support to prepare them into employment.
Work-Related Activity Group

If you are placed in the Work-Related Activity Group, you will be expected to take part in work-focused interviews with your personal adviser. You will get support to help you prepare for suitable work
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Illorinjured/DG_171894