Sanctions' figures

billywilly

Mersey wrote: »

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).

And surprise surprise TWO THIRDS lose! So on the balance of probabilities, it is safe to assume that well over 67% of ALL sanction cases are genuine and deserving a sanction. Only the minority when looking at all sanctions imposed are found to be incorrect. - not bad odds I say!

backdoorwarrior

billywilly wrote: »

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?

Do you have reading problems, or are you really saying that someone left without a suite for three months could die because they don't have a suite.

billywilly

backdoorwarrior wrote: »

Do you have reading problems, or are you really saying that someone left without a suite for three months could die because they don't have a suite.

My reply was intended to be as stupid as your reply was!

backdoorwarrior

billywilly wrote: »

My reply was intended to be as stupid as your reply was!

How was my reply stupid? Disabled people have died due to sanctioning.

billywilly

backdoorwarrior wrote: »

How was my reply stupid? Disabled people have died due to sanctioning.

People die all of the time. What has being sanctioned got to do with it? Or maybe you are trying to build a case that people who get sanctioned are more likely to die than those that don't ?? Doesn't make any sense at all and I doubt very much that a death certificate will state that the cause of death is 'DWP sanction'.

backdoorwarrior

billywilly wrote: »

People die all of the time. What has being sanctioned got to do with it? Or maybe you are trying to build a case that people who get sanctioned are more likely to die than those that don't ?? Doesn't make any sense at all and I doubt very much that a death certificate will state that the cause of death is 'DWP sanction'.

Are you typing by bashing your head against your keyboard and letting spell check sort it out? You're not making any sense.

Grind your axe on another thread.

rogerblack

Almost twice as much was overpaid on benefits due to error, not fraud in the 2015 cycle.
1.4 billion was underpaid - half a billion due to DWP error.

nannytone_2

billywilly wrote: »

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?"

youre the only one bringing up single mothers on IS.
i referred specifically to your retired wife, who wouldn't be working regardless of whether you need care or not
i never said it should only be paid if someone has to 'give up' work to care..... the fact that the caring role prevents someone from being able to work enough hours to support themselves is the whole reason for carers allowance.
your wife receives a pension, and so doesn't have to work ( in paid employment)
this is the reason that CA cannot be claimed by anyone over state pension age ( only underlying entitlement if income is low)

Weary_soul

billywilly wrote: »

People die all of the time. What has being sanctioned got to do with it? Or maybe you are trying to build a case that people who get sanctioned are more likely to die than those that don't ?? Doesn't make any sense at all and I doubt very much that a death certificate will state that the cause of death is 'DWP sanction'.

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/blog/2014/07/ex-soldier-with-diabetes-dies-after-benefit-cut/

http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2014/10/21/uk-welfare-reform-deaths-updated-list-october-21st-2014/

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/02/05/welf-f05.html

billywilly

Weary_soul wrote: »

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/blog/2014/07/ex-soldier-with-diabetes-dies-after-benefit-cut/

http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2014/10/21/uk-welfare-reform-deaths-updated-list-october-21st-2014/

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/02/05/welf-f05.html

In all of those examples, no one has specifically died due to being sanctioned. There was a pre existing cause in all cases. There can only be one case where this may happen is if someone kills themselves BECAUSE of the worry and stress of not receiving an income. However even in those cases there will have been a pre existing mental health condition.
People who find themselves attempting suicide, would also have done it for many other reasons.
To say categorically that receiving a sanction will result in a healthy person killing themselves is ridiculous.

The purpose of those articles is to dramatize and take out of context what can happen if a sanction is issued.
This is done by a certain section of society that thinks that no one should be sanctioned and that the DWP are making it too hard for people to claim a benefit.