IDS wants to put DWP staff in Food Banks

10pence

Robbie64 wrote: »

The irony is that if IDS hadn't abolished Crisis Loans there would be less need for food banks.

Absolute rubbish. Had many an experience where people lied to get one of these loans for it to be wasted on something other than what it was allegedly applied for.

missapril75 wrote: »

I find this a bit of a puzzle. I was always under the impression that there already was an element of verification of the user's circumstances. Surely they are there because they have exhausted other possibilities.

I did a few years working in an advice centre. I had full access to benefits systems. The other staff who worked for other agencies and their service users all accepted I was on "their side" so to speak. I was an enabler. I was also in a position to confirm things so other services could be readily accessed. It was great.

The downside is what happens when someone comes in having said they've not had their (full) money or some such and you, as the DWP worker are asked to enquire, and you discover they had their usual £200 given to them two days ago.

This would be a far greater issue where someone is trying to access food in an immediate need. Misleading people - especially those not in a position to check - is disappointingly common.

I use to work for the Money Advice Service and was attached to two large inner city Citizens Advice Bureaus and worked from a large food bank, so speak from first hand experience.

We were told under no circumstances to investigate a claim for a food voucher, even after one of the local food banks asked us to stop issuing them to a certain named people who had committed fraud to obtain them. These cases were found out by the Job Centre and the food bank. The CAB's response was that they're not there to police the food vouchers.

We use to get people in reporting they need a food voucher for all sorts of reasons, from issues with benefits to debt and even saying they had 'lost' their money. You would offer to help with these issues, such as ring the DWP for the benefits or deal with the debts and all they would want is the food voucher.

I refused to issue food vouchers after catching a 'client' selling the food from the foodbank in the pub. They even had the audacity to return the CAB the next day for another food voucher - which after being informed of the incident still issued the voucher.

Someone posted about bad priorities and how many had sky, iphones, smoked or drank. I can safely say that less than 10% of the food vouchers I and the CAB I worked at issued are for the right reasons and for people in genuine need.

Putting DWP staff might be an idea, but it's not a perfect solution but neither is supplying more benefit money. The whole system is broken and needs fixing.

missapril75

10pence wrote: »

These cases were found out by the Job Centre and the food bank. The CAB's response was that they're not there to police the food vouchers.

Yes, that's what I meant with my reference to the DWP person discovering what's true and what's not and the problem presented when that's known.

We use to get people in reporting they need a food voucher for all sorts of reasons, from issues with benefits to debt and even saying they had 'lost' their money. You would offer to help with these issues, such as ring the DWP for the benefits or deal with the debts and all they would want is the food voucher.

Absolutely right. Any and every story. Crisis loan applications to go to a family funeral or sick relative in hospital.
"Actually, we can pay you a grant for that you know. That's much better than taking a loan or having an early payment spending a large chunk to get to the other end of the country and then being short of money. Just tell me the name and which hospital you're going to."

"uh...er...I don't know which hospital I'm going to" or "I don't know my brother's name...."

When you deal with crisis loan applications (as they were) you discover what nonsense the majority of the tales are from a combination of personal knowledge, investigation, observation etc. Even watching the person on CCTV putting on their shoes they claim to have had stolen from them. :rotfl:

I wouldn't presume that food bank use was subject to the same level of abuse as the crisis loans system was though.

ab1982

I volunteered at a food bank for an afternoon and didn't get the impression anybody was really taking advantage. One bloke just out of prison who didn't have his benefits set-up, a single mum with three kids, one woman who was definitely off her t*ts on something.... loads of different reasons.

At the time I remember thinking whether someone had spent their money on Booze, Drugs, Sky wasn't really relevant, at that point they needed food and its quite sad that in our rich and civilised society that people find themselves in that situation.

teddysmum

missapril75 wrote: »

Yes, that's what I meant with my reference to the DWP person discovering what's true and what's not and the problem presented when that's known.

Absolutely right. Any and every story. Crisis loan applications to go to a family funeral or sick relative in hospital.
"Actually, we can pay you a grant for that you know. That's much better than taking a loan or having an early payment spending a large chunk to get to the other end of the country and then being short of money. Just tell me the name and which hospital you're going to."

"uh...er...I don't know which hospital I'm going to" or "I don't know my brother's name...."

When you deal with crisis loan applications (as they were) you discover what nonsense the majority of the tales are from a combination of personal knowledge, investigation, observation etc. Even watching the person on CCTV putting on their shoes they claim to have had stolen from them. :rotfl:

I wouldn't presume that food bank use was subject to the same level of abuse as the crisis loans system was though.

Some time ago, my underage son was called to court, as a witness, so I had to accompany him.


While waiting in the court's general waiting area, a man, assuming we were in for prosecution, started chatting and telling us about his cons, including this one :


The 'trick' was to ask for crisis loan for furniture, then on the day before a home visit, move the beds, tv and anything looking good, including toys, to a mate's house, putting bedding on the sofa for the children and leaving a mattress for the adults. Result : money for new beds and more.


He suggested we try it and was quite put out when I said I wouldn't dream of such thievery.


Many years ago,a work colleague was also, amazed at a story told by her friend who had recently started work in a crisis loan department:


Someone listed a tv on their list of requirements, so the lady, queried this with superiors. She was told that they could not have money for a normal tv, but could for one in a cabinet, as that counted as furniture. (This was in the 1960s, so things were daft, even then)

ab1982

Let’s assume that 5/10 crisis loans go to people scamming the system and 5/10 go to people struggling with genuine hardship.

In that case would you advocate scrapping the scheme or keeping it going?

Personally I think I’d rather have some people getting money they don't deserve than risk some going without food, heating, furniture etc, especially if kids involved. I dont think the money saved would be worth it.

missapril75

teddysmum wrote: »

Someone listed a tv on their list of requirements, so the lady, queried this with superiors. She was told that they could not have money for a normal tv, but could for one in a cabinet, as that counted as furniture. (This was in the 1960s, so things were daft, even then)

That's actually a well known urban myth and is up there with the one about the homeless getting a few quid every week for their dogs

Having said that, in those days - and even into the 80s - when household items were being applied for people were given a list of allowable items for which they needed estimates from 2nd hand shops.

When the estimate was provided a giro would be issued, payable to the shop, and they could go and get their stuff. Maybe the shop, glad of the sale throws in a TV. Maybe they buy a TV instead of another item. Some kind of 'deal' is easily arranged and the giro "pays" for the TV.

missapril75

ab1982 wrote: »

Let’s assume that 5/10 crisis loans go to people scamming the system and 5/10 go to people struggling with genuine hardship.

In that case would you advocate scrapping the scheme or keeping it going?

Having worked in the system I'd definitely say keep it going but make a few simple changes that would render attempted scamming pointless or at least not worth the effort, so more time could go on the genuine. It's really not difficult to identify which is which.

When someone applies for their 6th "lost wallet" in less than a year use the existing rule that really does allow you to say you don't believe them ("inherently improbable"); insist they report the loss to Police before considering the application; meet the need by voucher for the supermarket; if they are street homeless the need can be met by the numerous resources available for such things; pay them not for the whole period but just two days - but come back if their wallet hasn't been handed in.

They tend not to return so maybe the wallet, cash intact, is returned. :rotfl:

Apologies for cynicism. It's just the way it is in an inner city office.

I dont think the money saved would be worth it.

Don't make the mistake in thinking the cost is just the money loaned and that it comes back. It very often doesn't but the far greater cost is all the administration of the application itself and that of recovery procedures.

Massive admin costs relative to the sums of the loans themselves.

BigAunty

Robbie64 wrote: »

The irony is that if IDS hadn't abolished Crisis Loans there would be less need for food banks.

Wasn't one of the issues with the crisis loans that a lot of claimants never paid them back and the costs involved with chasing for payments and following up historic debts?

specialboy

My daughter is a support worker and a couple of weeks ago one of her families was due a food voucher, my daughter picked her client up to take her to the food bank but got lost and arrived late, this was on a Friday and the client informed her "don't worry I will come back next week, I've got a load of shopping in already"
Makes you seriously wonder how many people really do actually NEED these food banks, I think that vouchers are given out all too easily so that the people running them can justify their existence.

missapril75

BigAunty wrote: »

Wasn't one of the issues with the crisis loans that a lot of claimants never paid them back and the costs involved with chasing for payments and following up historic debts?

Yes.

One only has to see the number of threads on this forum where old debts are resurrected. And these are probably people with relatively stable lifestyles. Now imagine how many loans are applied for by people with less settled or chaotic lifestyles.

In my part of the UK (inner city) the vast majority of crisis loans were applied for by those receiving benefits for their drug addictions (confirmed, not suspected), usually with some housing (lack of) issue. They frequently closed claims to get money out of cycle and would then re-open them always wanting more crisis loans because they'd already spent the last lot of benefit when they got it early.

That and moving around, claiming in different places meant some kind of recovery action was forever ending and starting, ending and starting with loan applications just mounting up because "what's the problem...you get it back..." Not.