Ex DWP staff set up advice site to help those with sanctions

Indie_Kid

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

That's not right is it? It's a shame that there is not some sort of support person to explain to people in language they understand, precisely what they need to do.

The problem some of us at a local group noticed was, that the leaflets aimed at us with learning disabilities was really dumbed down and had loads of pretty pictures.

I don't need information dumbing down. I just need it worded in such a way that it has only one meaning. Like the situation you mentioned with council tax. I'd probably think the same. Whereas if it was "you owe us £x. This is your council tax bill for 2014/15". I would understand it fine.

TELLIT01

Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »

It used to be so much easier if someone got Incapacity Benefit and didn't have to jump through hoops every 2 weeks to get their benefits. There are many claimants that don't fit in the boxes of disabled or unable to work and are made to go through the system when even to a lay person it is obvious they are incapable of holding down a job.

I fully accept that there are many people who don't neatly fit the boxes, but IB really wasn't fit for purpose. People were dumped in there and not seen again for years - if ever. It was a good place for the genuinely long term sick who were never likely to be able to work. Unfortunately it was also a wonderful hiding place for the terminally bone idle who had an incapacity which didn't incapacitate them at any time other than when/if they were called in for a medical.
The idea behind ESA, to determine what people ARE capable of doing, is sound. Implementation has been rather less so!
People on ESA don't have to 'jump through hoops every 2 weeks', unless you class having to provide medical evidence as the jumping. It is entirely in the hands of the GP how long they issue a certificate for. It can be for up to 3 months for the first 6 months of a claim and for any period once 6 months have passed. So maybe only 2 hoops?

Housing_Benefit_Officer

Indie_Kid wrote: »

The problem some of us at a local group noticed was, that the leaflets aimed at us with learning disabilities was really dumbed down and had loads of pretty pictures.

I don't need information dumbing down. I just need it worded in such a way that it has only one meaning. Like the situation you mentioned with council tax. I'd probably think the same. Whereas if it was "you owe us £x. This is your council tax bill for 2014/15". I would understand it fine.

The language on the demands is laid down by Central Government Legislation so the wording and terminology can't be easily re worded unless the Government changes the legislation.

Indie_Kid

Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »

The language on the demands is laid down by Central Government Legislation so the wording and terminology can't be easily re worded unless the Government changes the legislation.

I did wonder if this was the case. I know that my ESA and DLA letters are computer generated.

seven-day-weekend

Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »

The problem is many are not ill enough to have intervention and people handling their own affairs. Many don't have friends or relatives to help them or are unwilling or unable to ask for help, support and advice. If someone doesn't ask for help you can't intervene and force them to get help. There are probably many people out there unknown to the authorities with no money, rent arrears and council tax arrears who will probably end up on a friends floor or on the streets. It used to be so much easier if someone got Incapacity Benefit and didn't have to jump through hoops every 2 weeks to get their benefits. There are many claimants that don't fit in the boxes of disabled or unable to work and are made to go through the system when even to a lay person it is obvious they are incapable of holding down a job.

Insightful post. Of course, in my example of my son and his girlfriend mentioned above they DID ask for help. My son, being a very intelligent man, knows there are certain things (usually financial stuff) that he finds difficult and I have always brought him up from when he was quite small to keep asking until he understands. But I suppose a lot of people a) don't know their limitations and b) don't ask for help.

I agree that you cannot force help on someone. So in that case, they are going to keep getting sanctioned

I don't know what the answer is in these cases. They DO have to fulfil the criteria for receiving JSA, so if they don't understand what they have to do, they are going to keep getting sanctioned.

The lady I mentioned above from my Job Club is like this. She didn't want to tell the JC where she was applying for jobs, said that was her business, and just put things like 'applied for job' in her diary, thinking that would be sufficient. I had to spell it out to her in words of one syllable that she had to tell them, whether she wanted to or not, and pointed out to her that without the details, that she had not proved she had applied for a job, she could have made it all up. Hopefully she understands now.

Don't know what the answer is. I do think Jobseekers should have to prove that they have looked for work.

seven-day-weekend

Indie_Kid wrote: »

The problem some of us at a local group noticed was, that the leaflets aimed at us with learning disabilities was really dumbed down and had loads of pretty pictures.

I don't need information dumbing down. I just need it worded in such a way that it has only one meaning. Like the situation you mentioned with council tax. I'd probably think the same. Whereas if it was "you owe us £x. This is your council tax bill for 2014/15". I would understand it fine.

Absolutely. I agree wholeheartedly. Also, 'You do not need to pay it all at once. Please see reverse for monthly instalments'.

mattcanary

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Insightful post. Of course, in my example of my son and his girlfriend mentioned above they DID ask for help. My son, being a very intelligent man, knows there are certain things (usually financial stuff) that he finds difficult and I have always brought him up from when he was quite small to keep asking until he understands. But I suppose a lot of people a) don't know their limitations and b) don't ask for help.

I agree that you cannot force help on someone. So in that case, they are going to keep getting sanctioned

I don't know what the answer is in these cases. They DO have to fulfil the criteria for receiving JSA, so if they don't understand what they have to do, they are going to keep getting sanctioned.

The lady I mentioned above from my Job Club is like this. She didn't want to tell the JC where she was applying for jobs, said that was her business, and just put things like 'applied for job' in her diary, thinking that would be sufficient. I had to spell it out to her in words of one syllable that she had to tell them, whether she wanted to or not, and pointed out to her that without the details, that she had not proved she had applied for a job, she could have made it all up. Hopefully she understands now.

Don't know what the answer is. I do think Jobseekers should have to prove that they have looked for work.

I don't think jobseekers should have to prove they are looking for work, if they don't want to (in the sense of names of companies, copies of applications made, etc). System should be set up so that more help is available (ie: jobsearching help) if you are open, but no sanctions should be applied if you aren't. Sanctions are too reliant upon the interpretation of job centre and benefits processing staff.
Although of course you should be punished if you are committing benefits fraud (ie: claiming when working). But sanctions aren't required for that - legal action can be taken in these cases.


Jobseekers Allowance is hardly a lot of spending money anyway. And people are hardly making the most of their life if they are not really attempting to find work. A life on the dole does nothing for your self-esteem. That is enough punishment itself.

seven-day-weekend

I do think jobseeksers should have to prove they are looking for work by providing names of companies etc. whilst they are on Jobseekers' Allowance. They are not entitled to the Benefit if they are not. However, I agree that it is too much open to interpretation by Job Centre staff. Don't know what the answer is.

rogerblack

keitht53 wrote: »

I fully accept that there are many people who don't neatly fit the boxes, but IB really wasn't fit for purpose. People were dumped in there and not seen again for years - if ever. It was a good place for the genuinely long term sick who were never likely to be able to work. Unfortunately it was also a wonderful hiding place for the terminally bone idle who had an incapacity which didn't incapacitate them at any time other than when/if they were called in for a medical.
The idea behind ESA, to determine what people ARE capable of doing, is sound. Implementation has been rather less so!

Essentially, this is a complete lie in many cases, as ESA has been implemented.

The IB and ESA tests are broadly similar - very minor tweaks to the descriptors could make entitlement for IB and ESA basically the same for those in the support group.

The DWP had the power at any time to re-do the assessment process - much like with ESA. (I note that ESA assessments are currently stalled).

The major difference is that one route into IB was that due to their disability, the claimant had no reasonable prospects of ever working again.

The work program has, at best very questionable outcomes for those in the work-related group.

ESA is structurally broken.
IB was structurally broken too.

If I was tasked to reform this, I'd be doing it rather differently.

First week of claim - read through forms, and see if it's likely that the person would get back to work earlier if given prompt therapy, or is terminally ill.

If therapy would help - for example, person has a badly sprained knee that might/might not need surgery - refer for immediate treatment (that week).

_lots_ of research has been done that says that immediate treatment significantly reduces the length of disability in many cases. Proper advice may reduce or eliminate the likelyhood of the injury recurring in the future.

Stop this ridiculous fiction that NHS and benefit payments and person-not-paying-tax-due-to-being-unemployed are all separate pots of money.
Stop the ridiculous quarter of-an-hour-to assess a case, then pay for all the costs of an appeal - do it right first time.


Initially ESA, following the health assessment - there was a 'work focussed health related assessment'.
This was originally intended to see what way a claimant could be helped back into work, and would presumably have been seen by the work program providers, or DWP staff dealing directly with the claimant at work-focussed interviews.

This was soon cancelled.
So, instead of the staff dealing with getting the claimant back into work, with a nice list of issues to work on - they have a claimant turning up, with no prior knowledge of what issues their disability is causing them, and their sole knowledge of that disability may be on last nights 'Scroungers Revealed' on TV.

IB was structurally broken.
ESA is structurally broken.
UC is aiming to repeat this. (subtly different breakages)

dippy3103

I think everyone that is involved in the benefit system in the UK agrees that it needs major reform. It is there to support those in need & for those people it should be as stress free and prompt as possible. Yes there does have to be a degree of checking but it should not be overly intrusive.
It's not a lifestyle choice for the lazy - and yes there are many who have no intention of getting a job.

Let's face it, those that have abused the system have caused a lot of problems for the genuine & created a poor image which is used by benefit bashers as justification.

When it comes to benefit one size does not fit all, hence UC being such a bad idea. Especially pressing ahead with such a huge reform without adequate time to fully implement it properly.

Anyone else enough of a dinosaur to remember the introduction of JSA in about 1995?