People forced to work for benefits question.

keaton

I've just heard that people who claim benefits for a a certain amount of time will no longer have to do forced work to grain experience and to avoid benefit sanctions. Is this true?

Seems like a very un-tory thing to do, or am I missing something?

Mersey_2

It depends which scheme you are referring to.


The DWP did lose a couple of Court cases as their letters were deemed unlawful. The law was then changed retrospectively and new letters sent out re that mandatory scheme.


There were also other problems with welfare to work firms such as A4e who held Work Programme contracts.


May and the new DWP Sec did order a review into the myriad of schemes following criticism from the Select Committee, but I don't think that has reported yet.


Although May's new review into how the white working class (and ethnic minorities) are treated by public services is likely to impact on the sanctions' regime, as well as the fact that the DWP have been losing a lot of late in both the First Tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal where appeals involve sanctions.

keaton

So are people still forced to work around 30 hours a week or risk losing benefits?

Londonsu

The mandatory work activity scheme was stopped April this year.


I disagreed with it I would have preferred claimants to be given a job say for 6-12 months at at least NLW, that way they could have paid their own NI contributions and be taxed at source.


All other automatic entitlements like HB, CT discount, free prescriptions, dental work, eye tests could then have been claimed for using the relevant low income schemes so people still got their entitlements as low paid workers.


But that's not opponents of the scheme wanted, they wanted to be paid and still get their automatic entitlements without going through the means testing procedures.

Mersey_2

keaton wrote: »

So are people still forced to work around 30 hours a week or risk losing benefits?

Not sure what you mean by this.


JSA/UC Claimant Commitments often have job search requirements to list what you have done for upto 35 hours per week.

Mersey_2

Londonsu wrote: »

The mandatory work activity scheme was stopped April this year.


I disagreed with it I would have preferred claimants to be given a job say for 6-12 months at at least NLW, that way they could have paid their own NI contributions and be taxed at source.


All other automatic entitlements like HB, CT discount, free prescriptions, dental work, eye tests could then have been claimed for using the relevant low income schemes so people still got their entitlements as low paid workers.


But that's not opponents of the scheme wanted, they wanted to be paid and still get their automatic entitlements without going through the means testing procedures.

I think I see what you mean, although of course if only minimum wage jobs they'd be unlikely to be liable for much if any income tax, due to the rising personal allowance (which is a good move). Otherwise you have the Brown/Osborne merry-go-round of low income workers paying income tax and being paid Tax Credits.


Plus, from memory one of the Appellants took a principled stance in that he was a graduate in receipt of contributions-based JSA, so it was a bit of a silly move of whatever JobCentre Plus office who directed/mandated him to work in a supermarket or wherever to receive what he was already entitled to due to his previous NICs.

Londonsu

Mersey wrote: »

I think I see what you mean, although of course if only minimum wage jobs they'd be unlikely to be liable for much if any income tax, due to the rising personal allowance (which is a good move). Otherwise you have the Brown/Osborne merry-go-round of low income workers paying income tax and being paid Tax Credits.


Plus, from memory one of the Appellants took a principled stance in that he was a graduate in receipt of contributions-based JSA, so it was a bit of a silly move of whatever JobCentre Plus office who directed/mandated him to work in a supermarket or wherever to receive what he was already entitled to due to his previous NICs.

Not heard of that case as the scheme I knew about was for people who had been unemployed for a long time and would have exhausted their cont based JSA but then there is no blanket entitlement to cont based JSA is there? only that you get it no matter what your household income/savings are, any entitlement is surely dependant on a person fulfilling their job seeking obligations.


Still wouldn't mind a link as I am curious how someone can be a recent graduate and still have the requisite amount of NICS which are 2 years before the current tax year, unless of course as a graduate he thought working in a shop was beneath him which in that case I would have had no sympathy for him

Mersey_2

Entitlement to contribution-based JSA is by definition based on the claimant's NICs, but I take your point that in order to keep receiving it for 6 months they'll have to comply with conditionality requirements agreed with their advisor (although that will be less arduous than those on income-based JSA in terms of weekly signings, schemes and so on.)


You're right: that that was essentially the stance of the young female graduate (although she successfully argued mandating her to work in a shop was unlawful given the wording of the letter) who won in the High Court and CA.


The one I was thinking of was a claimant who won at the Upper Tribunal. I don't have the link to hand, but the decisions are all available online via the Administrative Court site (plus some are referred to on the Rightsnet forums). That was a male graduate - although not recent - think he'd been on JSA for 3 months at the time of the referral. I think the JCP Direction was invalid in that the letter failed to comply with the Decision Makers' handbook, he hadn't been afforded a 'permitted period' and he'd actually been volunteering anyway, so the direction wasn't reasonable as he couldn't physically be in two places at once. Although I have known JCPs send claimants on courses on the same day as their signing day, then purport to sanction them for non-attendance (!).

Mersey_2

Incidentally, I've found the para which aids claimants in appealing sanctions for the refusal to attend Back to Work sessions and schemes (although more for the OP on another thread who asked):


DM34691 of the DM Guide [although may have been renumbered since] states that:


a Claimant has 'good cause' to refuse a JS Direction if it probably would not have helped them in finding work. JS Act 1995, s19(10)(b) and 20A(9).


This can be evidence by their CV essentially (past qualifications and experience).

Londonsu

Mersey wrote: »

Entitlement to contribution-based JSA is by definition based on the claimant's NICs, but I take your point that in order to keep receiving it for 6 months they'll have to comply with conditionality requirements agreed with their advisor (although that will be less arduous than those on income-based JSA in terms of weekly signings, schemes and so on.)


You're right: that that was essentially the stance of the young female graduate (although she successfully argued mandating her to work in a shop was unlawful given the wording of the letter) who won in the High Court and CA.


The one I was thinking of was a claimant who won at the Upper Tribunal. I don't have the link to hand, but the decisions are all available online via the Administrative Court site (plus some are referred to on the Rightsnet forums). That was a male graduate - although not recent - think he'd been on JSA for 3 months at the time of the referral. I think the JCP Direction was invalid in that the letter failed to comply with the Decision Makers' handbook, he hadn't been afforded a 'permitted period' and he'd actually been volunteering anyway, so the direction wasn't reasonable as he couldn't physically be in two places at once. Although I have known JCPs send claimants on courses on the same day as their signing day, then purport to sanction them for non-attendance (!).

Think you mean Caitlin Reilly who although seemed to be a bit of an entitled ***** actually had a point when she was mandated to work in poundland when she already had a volunteer opportunity working in her chosen field which was geology so yes in her case it was wrong.

Mersey_2

Yes, she was the female graduate - we both referred to - who won in the High Court. The defective DWP letters were why she won. She actually lost on the point you mention. [The Government then introduced retrospective legislation and sent out over 1m new letters to all of the then claimants in order to comply.]


But not the male graduate who succeeded at the Upper Tribunal. He succeeded for the reasons I mentioned above.