Further UC delays?

[Deleted User]

worth a read:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jan/05/amber-rudd-to-delay-universal-credit-roll-out-pilot-study?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook&fbclid=IwAR37ntkWSKglA8MiZkZhLsFj_7jP7HcAh-9GhKOAtzjSDZ0DYZN2qZln2oI

huckster

There are a few issues.

1) The cost of migrating claimants will be huge, because I don't think they have found an ideal way of transferring data from legacy benefits systems to the UC system. There would need to large data processing sites with considerable manual intervention, if DWP wanted to help claimants move over to UC. I very much doubt the Unions would be happy to see the process outsourced to private sector and it would be difficult politically. Cost of employing Civil Servants on temporary contracts would also be expensive.

This is why DWP were looking at legacy benefit centres sending out letters telling the claimants they had to move to UC by X date, as the legacy benefit was being closed. This then relied on the claimants going online to make UC application and doing so accurately. Many claimants would have struggled to do this without being helped by local services such as Job Centre, council or charity organisations. There is no way Job Centre, DWP home visiting officers, local council staff and charities could deal with the number requiring help. It is not just about money, but it also about time and physical resources. A lot of Job Centres have been closed over recent years and Councils also don't have as many local offices in their area.

2) There are also a number of Court cases due to be heard in the next few months, which might put a spanner in the works. One case is about UC using employment earnings data from HMRC and sometimes using more than 1 months wages in an assessment period. The argument is that this puts children at risk, where the parents receive nil UC payment and they cannot manage to buy food, pay rent, household costs etc. If DWP lose this case, I am not sure how they would change UC to help resolve this.

It will be interesting what happens, as I think this is far more complex than most realise.

pmduk

These are all changes that would have been better made in a time of relative affluence when support networks were in place. Instead penny-pinching is at the fore, this has extended to UC itself making what could have been a constructive change almost a means of punishment for some.

tomtom256

There isn't sufficient staff to deal with new claims or natural migration, let alone anything else.

TELLIT01

When the original timescales for implementation of UC were announced, many of us working on ESA at the time said that it was totally unrealistic. If those at the coal face could see immediately that it couldn't possibly be done, why couldn't those involved in the procurement, production and implementation see it?
UC rollout was originally due to be completed by early 2016. We are now in early 2019 and don't really seem to be any closer to a full rollout. What has the cost escalated to? Who will be held accountable for the overspend? Who will be held accountable for the total failure of the software developers to provide a working product?

bspm1

TELLIT01 wrote: »

When the original timescales for implementation of UC were announced, many of us working on ESA at the time said that it was totally unrealistic. If those at the coal face could see immediately that it couldn't possibly be done, why couldn't those involved in the procurement, production and implementation see it?
UC rollout was originally due to be completed by early 2016. We are now in early 2019 and don't really seem to be any closer to a full rollout. What has the cost escalated to? Who will be held accountable for the overspend? Who will be held accountable for the total failure of the software developers to provide a working product?

I worked for the DWP for a good many years, during my time there three new 'software' packages were implemented.

The first one that I was trained on worked brilliantly, we made excellent progress on both old and new cases but for some reason 'they' decided it needed updating, three months of training later the new package was deemed unacceptable so a newer package was awaited. Fast forward a few years and another new software design implemented, followed by yet again three month training spaced over the year to retrain everyone again.

Unfortunately this new one missed off a very very simple requirement, a note pad facility so fellow officers could actually read what had happened previously on any given case. Disaster!

It was at this time, when yet another new package was about to be implemented that I decided to call it a day.

I do actually feel sorry for the many people still employed by the DWP, they do not know where they stand, they do not understand the many changes and they are facing abuse daily due to the mess that is the Universal Credit roll out.

bspm1

Oh, Hi everyone, back from holidays so a Happy New Year to everyone.

TELLIT01

When ESA was introduced we actually had staff from the software developer on site. During what became quite a heated meeting, where they clearly didn't appreciate problem after problem being raised, one of them actually said "We weren't given enough money to implement it properly". Um, they bid for the contract, they weren't forced at gunpoint to take the work on.

Gold_Shogun

TELLIT01 wrote: »

..... one of them actually said "We weren't given enough money to implement it properly".

Ah! ... The 'Jurassic Park' defence ... Worked out better for the dinosaurs than for the people