Harshness of uc

TELLIT01

UC seems to be yet another example of a good idea, a single benefit which varies as the claimant's needs vary, which has been very badly implemented. When we (people working in benefit delivery centres) heard that HB was going to be paid to the claimant and not direct to the landlord, we could all see that it was likely to result in far more rent arrears, and so it has. Again, a great theory - that claimants should be given more responsibility for their own money, the reality is that many claimants are utterly incapable of managing their money.

calcotti

annandale wrote: »

If you are paid a day early unexpectedly like I was earlier in the year it can mean a cut in your next uc payment that you have not planned for. I got 80 pounds taken off my next uc payment as I was paid one day early. How exactly are you supposed to plan for that?

Was your next UC payment higher as a result?

I know that doesn’t help with managing with cash flow and that cash flow is more difficult on a low income anyway but I am interested to know if you got the same amount of money overall.

pmlindyloo

TELLIT01 wrote: »

UC seems to be yet another example of a good idea, a single benefit which varies as the claimant's needs vary, which has been very badly implemented. When we (people working in benefit delivery centres) heard that HB was going to be paid to the claimant and not direct to the landlord, we could all see that it was likely to result in far more rent arrears, and so it has. Again, a great theory - that claimants should be given more responsibility for their own money, the reality is that many claimants are utterly incapable of managing their money.

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Personally I feel that all housing benefit should be paid directly to the landlord.

So often the housing benefit money is used for other things.

If it were paid directly to the landlord it would be a win win situation for the majority of people, No one would lose their home through rent arrears and landlords would not suffer through non payment.

There will always be some people who will have rent arrears if they do not receive full housing benefit and have to pay the difference but at least it would minimise the potential misery for the majority of tenants and landlords.

calcotti

TELLIT01 wrote: »

UC seems to be yet another example of a good idea, a single benefit which varies as the claimant's needs vary, which has been very badly implemented.

Too true. If the Government were willing to listen many of the implementation/procedural issues could be sorted out which would be a great improvement.

Although Alice has highlighted the inherent problem with a single benefit which is that if a problem arises all income stops, in my experience, whenever a legacy DWP Benefit was suspended or amended for some reason the local authority usually suspended Housing Benefit anyway while they carried out investigations. Claimant than had too deal with two agencies to get their benefits back in place.

CPAG produced recent report on problems with monthly assessments https://www.cpag.org.uk/content/rough-justice-http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/rough-justice-problems-monthly-assessment-pay-and-circumstances-universal-credit-and-what-ca

annandale

UC seems to be yet another example of a good idea, a single benefit which varies as the claimant's needs vary, which has been very badly implemented. When we (people working in benefit delivery centres) heard that HB was going to be paid to the claimant and not direct to the landlord, we could all see that it was likely to result in far more rent arrears, and so it has. Again, a great theory - that claimants should be given more responsibility for their own money, the reality is that many claimants are utterly incapable of managing their money.

Or, they are in so much debt by the time they get their first payment that they've spent their rent on other things. I waited 6 weeks for my first payment. It should have been 5 as I was transferred over from a legacy benefit. That took months to sort. It also meant that I had to pay my advanced loan back over 6 months rather than 12.

The single benefit which varies as the claimants needs vary is fair enough. But issues with the in work allowance (or lack of it), makes life hard for people in part time work. I have no kids. If I had I would keep 192 of my wages (actually more as I own my flat), before the taper applied. I keep nothing. Last year I was working two nights a week, more actually as I did hours voluntary that I had to do, we all did, they made us do set up and clear up time and we were not paid for this.

I worked out that after the taper applied on a 7.50 min wage, I cleared 2.33 an hour. Out of that I had to pay travel. I got council tax reduction taken from me and I was actually worse off than I would have been doing nothing after all of this was taken into account.

I'm not incapable of managing my money. Some people are. But the bigger issue is that people live on a pittance. And unless people are working and transferring over onto UC, few people will have savings to tide them over until the first payment of UC arrives.

My rent last year was 243 pounds. My advance was just short of that. People are having to make choices between paying bills or rent and it is little surprise to me that some people are struggling so badly.

In Scotland you can choose to have your rent paid direct to landlord and your money paid every two weeks

1st Sep 18, 7:40 PM
Sorry but it would be much easier to read in paragraphs, I lost the plot after the 6th line, if you click the "edit" button on your OP you can make some spaces.

The Op made clear they had eyesight issues when they posted.

The fact that depending on your assessment period and whether your employers pay you fortnightly, monthly or 4 weekly could mean that you get less UC even if you earn the same wage and people are also being benefit capped due to the two pays in one assessment period is ridiculous

It is a shambles. It is not fit for purpose. I used to get 230 every month in UC, as I said earlier I got paid one day early for easter, two pays in one assessment period. I got 147 the next month. It wasn't a double wage and I still had the same outgoings to pay out. For those who say it evens itself out over the year, that is no good when you are in hardship because you had no idea you were going to be paid early

In my area (West of Scotland), if someone was on JSA, they could apply for cheap bus travel. On UC, even if you got the same amount, you didn't qualify.

The day after I claimed I was told to go back to the job centre for an orientation day. People on JSA got their fares refunded and people on UC didn't.

Uc is a shambles


Here's Charlotte's blog. She sees people at the sharp end https://thepoorsideof.life/

annandale

Was your next UC payment higher as a result?

I know that doesn’t help with managing with cash flow and that cash flow is more difficult on a low income anyway but I am interested to know if you got the same amount of money overall.

No. My next payment of UC was not higher as a result of this.

Just to clarify incase it wasn't clear. I was paid a day early by my employer for Easter. Two pays fell into my assessment period. My next UC payment was reduced by 80 pounds and I also got council tax reduction taken from me as well.

calcotti

annandale wrote: »

No. My next payment of UC was not higher as a result of this.

Just to clarify incase it wasn't clear. I was paid a day early by my employer for Easter. Two pays fell into my assessment period. My next UC payment was reduced by 80 pounds and I also got council tax reduction taken from me as well.

I possibly phrased the question badly. I realize that the payment immediately after your ‘double’ payment would have been reduced. What I meant was that if you two payments in one period did that mean that in the following period did you have no wage payments and therefore get higher UC.

I don’t disagree with any of the concerns you have raised just trying to learn from your experience.

annandale

I possibly phrased the question badly. I realize that the payment immediately after your ‘double’ payment would have been reduced. What I meant was that if you two payments in one period did that mean that in the following period did you have no wage payments and therefore get higher UC.

No. It doesnt work like that. Your assessment period can vary slightly from month to month. It should even itself out over the year but it won't always be in the following month.

w06

The trouble with housing benefit or equivalent going straight to the landlord is that when it's wrong that immediately hits the landlord too, which when it's a private landlord who is wary of having a tenant reliant on benefits adds extra stress and strain on the tenancy.

By unlucky timing my UC is paid 2 days after my rent leaves my account, which has needed a balance transfer to buffer it. My first UC payment didn't include housing costs, which was rectified after I queried it, and my UC housing costs are, rightly I've a bigger house than I need, £145 less than my rent.

For my landlord, who took me on 7 years ago as an in work self sufficient tenant, his only involvement has been writing an email to clarify my tenancy and rent when I first claimed, financially it hasn't affected him at all, which is certainly as I prefer it.

It is a bit of a rock and a hard place situation though isn't it

fredandwilma

annandale wrote: »

Or, they are in so much debt by the time they get their first payment that they've spent their rent on other things. I waited 6 weeks for my first payment. It should have been 5 as I was transferred over from a legacy benefit. That took months to sort. It also meant that I had to pay my advanced loan back over 6 months rather than 12.


Uc is a shambles


Here's Charlotte's blog. She sees people at the sharp end https://thepoorsideof.life/

Agree - I'm now in debt and at the sharp end, thanks to UC, (and still incomeless).

I'll be in debt for 12 months whilst i repay the advance. Assuming i live that long.

I still maintain although there may be winners under the UC system, the losers are definitely the most vulnerable in soceity such as the Severely Disabled, particularly those who live alone.

Government policy / aim has always been to target those people from the very beginning of the UC rollout.

I had my obligatory advance which has now been spent. I still haven't received my UC award or first payment.

Whatya gona do when the money runs out, goes the song.

I don't know. What do you do? Crawl under a stone somewhere?

Some bright spark from said above, (people working in benefit delivery centres,) told me i would receive £73.10 a week.

Lovely. I suppose it's better than nothing, albeit, not enough to live on when you are severley disabled.

Until i receive an official award, I can't have any of the care / treatment etc, I require either, as i don't have proof of income. Almost as bad as not having any income, not having proof of income. It's had a detrimental affect on my already, ill health. How do you prove you have no income when applying for things such as the WHD. I've applied, I've no income, I can't afford heating, (which i do need,) no proof i have no income.

I've had to make a choice whether to pay rent or pay bills. I paid the rent for as long as i could but I've had to stop paying the rent, not because i can't manage my money, but i don't have any money to manage. I've applied for budgeting advice just to see how a government worker manages to budget zero income. Interesting?

I'm now way in arrears with my rent, I don't know how many weeks it is now, and i'm past caring. In the meantime my rent arrears will continue to mount until my landlord decides enough is enough?

It's utterley depressing and degrading.

No, it's just depressing.