Welfare Reform

Growurown

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/dhpguide.pdf

I was told that DHP's were only temporary but the guidance says that can be over a much longer term and it will be up to the local authority to make that decision. After all it doesn't make financial sense to move someone out of a property that has been substantially adapted for their needs for example.

I know all the housing associations in my area have gone to a lot of trouble to make all their tenants aware of the changes, but there will be some people who just threw the letters in the bin.

I read the article and agreed with Danny Alexander that work must pay. This is a lot of the reason why people on benefits that I talk to as part of my job don't work - because they think that they will be working for nothing or actually be worse off. Things like the increase in the tax allowance will be a positive move. UC if it works properly will help too.

Depth_Charge

Hi

Disability Living Allowance (DLA) replaced by PIP scheme

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22058059

This particular aspect of the welfare reform programme could have bigger implications than it may first appear.

Anybody who knows a thing or two about benefits will tell you that there can be a 'multi effect' if DLA is stopped due the possible passport benefit premiums etc involved and with regard to people who are carers.

The potential loss of mobility vehicles is another aspect.

The loss of DLA along with other cuts could have a massive negative impact on incomes depending on circumstances of course.

Again Im not getting into who should get what benefit just the budgeting and debt side of the equation.

Those potentially affected would be best to read up and prepare in my opinion.

These changes are going to happen

My take as always

dktreesea

Things like replacing DLA with PIP, regular assessments of the person's disability, and in particular a focus on whether someone's disability should excuse them from working for a living, is part of a wider debate within society about just what, exactly, should we be paying welfare for. While having a physical or mental impairment usually doesn't preclude a person from doing some kind of work - after all plenty of disabled people hold down full time jobs and never apply for any benefits - why should being impaired in some way entitle you to more money from the taxpayer than an non-disabled person is entitled to?

Growurown

I attended a course today all about UC. It was very informative and made me realise that this change in the welfare system is a lot bigger than I had thought. Some of the changes I think will improve the situation and some not. Some of the changes are about saving money and some are really about social engineering, but one thing is for sure it is going to be a lot tougher and very different from the current system.

Depth_Charge

Growurown wrote: »

I attended a course today all about UC. It was very informative and made me realise that this change in the welfare system is a lot bigger than I had thought. Some of the changes I think will improve the situation and some not. Some of the changes are about saving money and some are really about social engineering, but one thing is for sure it is going to be a lot tougher and very different from the current system.

Hi

I agree

Budgeting is going to be the key for many its as simple as that or debt, repossesions is what will be down the line.

The impact of these reforms will increase as time passes and more changes are introduced.

The problem will be for many is that the bottom line figure might not make any sense whichever way they perm the numbers and very tough times are ahead.

The irony of this is despite the tendancy to borrow off high interest lenders as a short term fix which in turn will inevitably lead to long term debt it could force people into formal debt solutions which then may backfire on these type of lenders.

All the same, there will be a fair chunk of misery and chaos before things settle, thats if they ever do.

Helping people survive from one crisis to another may become the norm.

Its early days still but not looking good at all Im afraid

My views

Depth_Charge

Hi

Another avenue not yet really touched on within the context of this thread is gambling.

The amount of advertising and easy access to gambling is a little disturbing in my opinion.

All I seem to see during the commercial breaks are gambling & payday loan adverts its truly astonishing when you take notice.

So easy to get hooked on gambling and anybody with experience in the field of gambling addiction will tell you that is not a nice place to be at all.

People struggling with finances can easily be tempted by the gambling phenonmen, looking for that big win and before they know it the gambling itself can be out of control adding to the pain and misery and sometimes ending in tragedy.

It just seems to me whatever side you are on with the welfare reform debate that there are organisations waiting to take advantage of vulnerable people and could not care less what mess is left behind.

Commission and sales rubbish at its very worse if you ask me.

There has to be a safety net and protection and not just keep heaping the blame or scapegoating the vulnerable and people struggling with low pay and in receipt of benefits.

All these issues need addressing by the powers that be if things are going to work out, will they be, well, we probably all know the answer to that one dont we?

Some of these rule makers and their 'repeaters' sat in their TV studios talk the talk protected by their cushy numbers and millions and do not live in the real world and would not last a week facing what some people & families have to endure and face every day of their lives.

It is worth remembering that all can be well one day with the sun shining bright, but things can change in a moment and the world is turned upside down - "who would have thought that" I have heard so many times and will again its a certainty, maybe even today.

Just my opinions based on genuine experience, including on a personal level unfortunately.

Growurown

Depth_Charge wrote: »

Budgeting is going to be the key for many its as simple as that or debt, repossesions is what will be down the line.

All the housing associations that I meet in my daily work are really concerned about this. UC is paid in arrears, it will take one calender month and then another 7 days before payment is received. So claimants are going to have no money for at least 5 weeks. When they do receive payment they will only have one months money so already they will be a week behind with their rent.

Currently someone on JSA who gets sanctioned only loses their JSA. When UC comes in and they are sanctioned they will lose all their UC payment which includes their rent and any of the other benefits that UC is going to replace. My feeling is that a lot of people on benefits don't realise yet how this is going to affect them and the ones who just coast through the system will get a real kick up the backside.

Depth_Charge wrote: »

Another avenue not yet really touched on within the context of this thread is gambling.

The amount of advertising and easy access to gambling is a little disturbing in my opinion.

I agree. I have also noticed the proliferation of adverts for gambling websites. This insidious business is taking off as people get desperate to make some extra money. There are going to be companies making a lot of money out of people's misery, but of course they will say that no one has to partake.

dktreesea

I agree gambling is a problem, even within the wider community and not just for benefits recipients. When it comes to UC though, there is no doubt in my mind that the government is trying to make being on benefits a much less comfortable option than it currently is. The problem is, giving DWP staff targets to sanction "x" percentage of their clients is quite perverse. Stories abound on the internet of, for example, the guy up in Cavendish who pushes his clients to apply for jobs they don't have the correct qualifications or experience for, then tells them they are not trying hard enough to get a job and sanctions them, even though the town he is based in is dead when it comes to work. There doesn't seem to be any push to make the DWP staff accountable for how they behave. They seem to be laws unto themselves.

And maybe that's what the government wants, for benefit clients to realise that it's next to impossible to rely on benefits for any length of time. A minimum of 4 weeks for a sanction, up from one week, and, as you say, Growurown, the whole of the UC payment sanctioned, not just the jsa portion! Wow! That is going to cause some people serious hardship. Not everyone has friends and family to fall back on. Being on benefits is quite isolating anyway, because you don't have any extra money to do anything with. It's just existence/survival living, especially if you are single or a couple without children.

People will soon learn though, that the main priority as soon as they get their payment, will be to pay the rent first, no matter what else is outstanding. If they don't and end up being evicted, the local council may not help them, because they will be ajudged to have made themselves homeless intentionally.

Depth_Charge

Growurown wrote: »

All the housing associations that I meet in my daily work are really concerned about this. UC is paid in arrears, it will take one calender month and then another 7 days before payment is received. So claimants are going to have no money for at least 5 weeks. When they do receive payment they will only have one months money so already they will be a week behind with their rent.

Currently someone on JSA who gets sanctioned only loses their JSA. When UC comes in and they are sanctioned they will lose all their UC payment which includes their rent and any of the other benefits that UC is going to replace. My feeling is that a lot of people on benefits don't realise yet how this is going to affect them and the ones who just coast through the system will get a real kick up the backside.



I agree. I have also noticed the proliferation of adverts for gambling websites. This insidious business is taking off as people get desperate to make some extra money. There are going to be companies making a lot of money out of people's misery, but of course they will say that no one has to partake.

Hi

You make some excellent and sensible points here.

The potential sanctions being one in particular

It may not take long before people are up to the shock absorders in debt and homes at risk.

Many people only seek help (rightly or wrongly) when the bailiffs come knocking for council tax arrears or when the possession hearing or eviction warrant papers arrive.

Once in the mire then it will become even harder to survive especially trying to maintain payments on council tax and rent arrears.

The gambling issue combined with the payday loan issues will play a big part in all this in my opinion with gambling a real hidden ticking time bomb danger.

Debt Relief Orders (DROs) and bankruptcies even have to rise in my opinion.

An interesting point with all these cuts and reductions in income, is how many people will now become eligible for Debt Relief Orders on the £50 per month disposable income criteria that previously were not.

Hope the advice agencies do the right thing in all this where DMPs & potential DROs may be now be concerned - sure they will, they are independent and impartial enough...arent they????

Just my take again:)

Depth_Charge

dktreesea wrote: »

I agree gambling is a problem, even within the wider community and not just for benefits recipients. When it comes to UC though, there is no doubt in my mind that the government is trying to make being on benefits a much less comfortable option than it currently is. The problem is, giving DWP staff targets to sanction "x" percentage of their clients is quite perverse. Stories abound on the internet of, for example, the guy up in Cavendish who pushes his clients to apply for jobs they don't have the correct qualifications or experience for, then tells them they are not trying hard enough to get a job and sanctions them, even though the town he is based in is dead when it comes to work. There doesn't seem to be any push to make the DWP staff accountable for how they behave. They seem to be laws unto themselves.

And maybe that's what the government wants, for benefit clients to realise that it's next to impossible to rely on benefits for any length of time. A minimum of 4 weeks for a sanction, up from one week, and, as you say, Growurown, the whole of the UC payment sanctioned, not just the jsa portion! Wow! That is going to cause some people serious hardship. Not everyone has friends and family to fall back on. Being on benefits is quite isolating anyway, because you don't have any extra money to do anything with. It's just existence/survival living, especially if you are single or a couple without children.

People will soon learn though, that the main priority as soon as they get their payment, will be to pay the rent first, no matter what else is outstanding. If they don't and end up being evicted, the local council may not help them, because they will be ajudged to have made themselves homeless intentionally.

Hi

Again, some excellent and sensible points.

You are right that the increase in gambling just does not affect one section of society.

Gambling within reason is one thing but is that what we are really seeing, mmm, I think not.

They way things are going, the push and easy availability of gambling is showing signs of becoming a plague.

Maybe the Payday loan & gambling companies can cut a deal on the TV adverts to save costs...a sort of joint venture advert sort of thing.

Nothing good will come of this, mark my words

Just my take again