Sanctions' figures

mattcanary

konark wrote: »

I don't really understand the figures.

It said today 750,000 people were getting JSA.

Last year 606,000 people on JSA were sanctioned.
, which was a reduction from 2013.

So almost everybody (80%) on JSA was sanctioned?

But Govt figures say just 6%!

That would mean 10 million people were claiming JSA , a third of the workforce!

Most people on JSA are not on the benefit for as long as a year.
More than 750 000 people (by far) would have been claiming JSA at some time during the year.

nannytone_2

billywilly wrote: »

I was making a point concerning a couple and one of them going out to work full time to support the family.

OK, the accepted level of £350 a week for a single person - that's over 50 hours a week @ NMW!!
Who would want to work those hours to get what the government would give them for doing nothing?

Forget London that is a poor example. The average rental for a 1 bed flat here is £225 which just about hits the max HB, so no contribution needed. Then we have CTS not forgetting JSA. That more or less matches the £350 a week.

I have to admit that 5 years ago when I turned 60 I calculated what benefits I would have got and compared it to what I was earning net of all travel expenses etc. If I had have claimed for everything (being disabled) we, as a couple would have cleared close to £700 a week in benefits - I was netting £422 a week at work a week.

as you are disregarding london, then i will too.
in my area the 1 bed LHA rate is £80 a week.
single occupancy council tax ( band A) minus the contribution that the tenant has to make, means council tax support is roughly £15 a week, so total housing is £95 a week.
the most severely disabled person, with top DLA/PIP awards and every available premium would receive an additional £310. so a grand total of £405 a week. a lot of money, but only the most severely disabled person, that lives alone and has no one caring for them would get this amount. if social services provide a care package, this could be reduced by upto £110 a week ( different councils operate different co funding arrangements) so bringing the amount down to £295.
this disabled person is the one you think should be working 50 hours a week remember.

the same person on HSA would receive a total of £170 a week.

you seem to be labouring under the illusion that just because there is a cap , that everyone receives that amount!

you were more than happy to be the recipient of this additional money yourself, yet strangely have changed your mind now that this funding has been withdrawn.

as for your wife caring for you yet receiving nothing .... she isn't giving up employment in order to care is she?
she would be at home with you regardless, so there is no financial loss or limitation of earning potential, unlike those that can't choose to work because of caring responsibilities

dodger1

tomtontom wrote: »

Disabled people should not be exempt from sanctions, so long as they are applied fairly. The stats don't really tell us anything, we don't know the reasons behind why they were applied.

I disagree, nobody should be exempt from sanctions. However as I have said many times on MSE when a sanction is issued no benefit should be stopped until after any appeal is heard.

Edit just realised I misread your first line!!

Mersey_2

konark wrote: »

I don't really understand the figures.

It said today 750,000 people were getting JSA.

Last year 606,000 people on JSA were sanctioned.
, which was a reduction from 2013.

So almost everybody (80%) on JSA was sanctioned?

But Govt figures say just 6%!

That would mean 10 million people were claiming JSA , a third of the workforce!

Well, last year 1.5m were claiming; but, it's mainly due to the fact that some claimants will have been sanctioned several times.


The bulk of those sanctioned, however, will have been sanctioned for 1-2 weeks during the year.


Plus, as others have said, during any year, millions of people claim ie move in and out of work and claim JSA for short periods of 3 months.

backdoorwarrior

konark wrote: »

I don't really understand the figures.

It said today 750,000 people were getting JSA.

Last year 606,000 people on JSA were sanctioned.
, which was a reduction from 2013.

So almost everybody (80%) on JSA was sanctioned?

But Govt figures say just 6%!

That would mean 10 million people were claiming JSA , a third of the workforce!

what gets me is previously the government said they don't audit the number of people sanctioned.

billywilly

nannytone wrote: »

as for your wife caring for you yet receiving nothing .... she isn't giving up employment in order to care is she?
she would be at home with you regardless, so there is no financial loss or limitation of earning potential, unlike those that can't choose to work because of caring responsibilities [/B]

I like that! So all single mum's at home claiming IS with at least one child who is disabled should not be allowed to claim Carers Allowance because, "she would be at home regardless, so there is no financial loss or limitation of earning potential"

And that Carers Allowance should only be given if someone gives up work to care?, "as for your wife caring for you yet receiving nothing .... she isn't giving up employment in order to care is she?"

billywilly

dodger1 wrote: »

I disagree, nobody should be exempt from sanctions. However as I have said many times on MSE when a sanction is issued no benefit should be stopped until after any appeal is heard.

Edit just realised I misread your first line!!

And given the time lag from asking for a MR and then turning up at a Tribunal, some claimants may well have closed their claim down. Would they then be expected to repay the overpaid benefits if they lost the appeal?

If however there was an single appeal system specifically for this that would only deal with written evidence and rule on the sanction within say 5 days, then I agree with you. But to allow someone to continue to receive benefits for upwards of a year before a Tribunal could hear the appeal is ridiculous.

The current system works quite well in my opinion. First of all they must have broken a rule or an agreement to get the sanction.Then the money is stopped for a specific time as punishment. If a Tribunal 12 months down the line decides that the DWP were wrong in issuing that sanction and withdrawing benefit, the money stopped will then be refunded to the claimant.

Off the subject you might argue that paying out say £2000 for a new suite and being told that it will be delivered in 3 months is wrong?

backdoorwarrior

billywilly wrote: »

And given the time lag from asking for a MR and then turning up at a Tribunal, some claimants may well have closed their claim down. Would they then be expected to repay the overpaid benefits if they lost the appeal?

If however there was an single appeal system specifically for this that would only deal with written evidence and rule on the sanction within say 5 days, then I agree with you. But to allow someone to continue to receive benefits for upwards of a year before a Tribunal could hear the appeal is ridiculous.

The current system works quite well in my opinion. First of all they must have broken a rule or an agreement to get the sanction.Then the money is stopped for a specific time as punishment. If a Tribunal 12 months down the line decides that the DWP were wrong in issuing that sanction and withdrawing benefit, the money stopped will then be refunded to the claimant.

Off the subject you might argue that paying out say £2000 for a new suite and being told that it will be delivered in 3 months is wrong?

Except you don't die if it takes three months to get your new suite.

Mersey_2

billywilly wrote: »

And given the time lag from asking for a MR and then turning up at a Tribunal, some claimants may well have closed their claim down. Would they then be expected to repay the overpaid benefits if they lost the appeal?

If however there was an single appeal system specifically for this that would only deal with written evidence and rule on the sanction within say 5 days, then I agree with you. But to allow someone to continue to receive benefits for upwards of a year before a Tribunal could hear the appeal is ridiculous.

The current system works quite well in my opinion. First of all they must have broken a rule or an agreement to get the sanction.Then the money is stopped for a specific time as punishment. If a Tribunal 12 months down the line decides that the DWP were wrong in issuing that sanction and withdrawing benefit, the money stopped will then be refunded to the claimant.

Off the subject you might argue that paying out say £2000 for a new suite and being told that it will be delivered in 3 months is wrong?

It isn't the Claimant/Appellant's fault there is a backlog in Tribunal Appeals and so they cannot be held responsible for the delay.


The DWP and Chris Grayling created that, although the Government has since taken on a lot more daily-rate Judges to deal with this. Clearly if you sanction people unnecessarily, don't be surprised if they appeal (and a third win).

billywilly

backdoorwarrior wrote: »

Except you don't die if it takes three months to get your new suite.

You could quite easily. Besides in that scenario you wouldn't get your money back either.
Ignoring the suite comment, I presume that you are in agreement that when benefit fraud is suspected, the DWP should continue to carry on paying the benefits under investigation until such time as the courts decide that an offence has been committed?