£20 extra on JSA is this right a court case last week for people on legacy benefits

Spoonie_Turtle

Okay I know this is veering into discussion, but the whole issue of the IT system is an absolute embarrassment, surely, that the system is so bad it can apparently literally only accept changed numbers once a year.  How utterly ridiculous.

calcotti

Spoonie_Turtle said:

Okay I know this is veering into discussion, but the whole issue of the IT system is an absolute embarrassment, surely, that the system is so bad it can apparently literally only accept changed numbers once a year.  How utterly ridiculous.

But not worth spending time and money to update it as the relevant benefits are being phased out (and were originally scheduled to end about 5 years ago). In general benefit changes do only occur once a year.

Spoonie_Turtle

calcotti said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

Okay I know this is veering into discussion, but the whole issue of the IT system is an absolute embarrassment, surely, that the system is so bad it can apparently literally only accept changed numbers once a year.  How utterly ridiculous.

But not worth spending time and money to update it as the relevant benefits are being phased out (and were originally scheduled to end about 5 years ago). In general benefit changes do only occur once a year.

Yes, true.  And they were expecting them to have been mostly phased out already, with their original timetable.  [I'm just baffled at how any system can be that rigid; you'd think it should be as simple as plugging in numbers and the rest working out automatically - but then nothing is ever as simple as it should be, of course, with the dear old DWP ]

LaDerniereSemaine

Spoonie_Turtle said:

calcotti said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

Okay I know this is veering into discussion, but the whole issue of the IT system is an absolute embarrassment, surely, that the system is so bad it can apparently literally only accept changed numbers once a year.  How utterly ridiculous.

But not worth spending time and money to update it as the relevant benefits are being phased out (and were originally scheduled to end about 5 years ago). In general benefit changes do only occur once a year.

Yes, true.  And they were expecting them to have been mostly phased out already, with their original timetable.  [I'm just baffled at how any system can be that rigid; you'd think it should be as simple as plugging in numbers and the rest working out automatically - but then nothing is ever as simple as it should be, of course, with the dear old DWP ]

Many computer systems are horrifically designed, and often severely outdated.

Then you have them tweaked and altered to to things they were never originally intended to do, as well as new systems overlaying old ones...

Over years it eventually becomes an incomprehensible mess that just barely functions, but the cost of replacing it wholesale is astronomical, as well as possibly not being able to do it without downtime and you end up with what we have now.

But it's in no way limited to government systems, unfortunately.

NedS

LaDerniereSemaine said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

calcotti said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

Okay I know this is veering into discussion, but the whole issue of the IT system is an absolute embarrassment, surely, that the system is so bad it can apparently literally only accept changed numbers once a year.  How utterly ridiculous.

But not worth spending time and money to update it as the relevant benefits are being phased out (and were originally scheduled to end about 5 years ago). In general benefit changes do only occur once a year.

Yes, true.  And they were expecting them to have been mostly phased out already, with their original timetable.  [I'm just baffled at how any system can be that rigid; you'd think it should be as simple as plugging in numbers and the rest working out automatically - but then nothing is ever as simple as it should be, of course, with the dear old DWP ]

Many computer systems are horrifically designed, and often severely outdated.

Then you have them tweaked and altered to to things they were never originally intended to do, as well as new systems overlaying old ones...

Over years it eventually becomes an incomprehensible mess that just barely functions, but the cost of replacing it wholesale is astronomical, as well as possibly not being able to do it without downtime and you end up with what we have now.

But it's in no way limited to government systems, unfortunately.

Exactly this. Legacy benefits still use the JSAPS system which is literally based on code from the 1960's:

https://www.ukauthority.com/articles/dwp-completes-re-platforming-for-jobseeker-s-allowance-payments/

Google 'jsaps screenshot' and the black screenshots will give you an idea.

sammyjammy

LaDerniereSemaine said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

calcotti said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

Okay I know this is veering into discussion, but the whole issue of the IT system is an absolute embarrassment, surely, that the system is so bad it can apparently literally only accept changed numbers once a year.  How utterly ridiculous.

But not worth spending time and money to update it as the relevant benefits are being phased out (and were originally scheduled to end about 5 years ago). In general benefit changes do only occur once a year.

Yes, true.  And they were expecting them to have been mostly phased out already, with their original timetable.  [I'm just baffled at how any system can be that rigid; you'd think it should be as simple as plugging in numbers and the rest working out automatically - but then nothing is ever as simple as it should be, of course, with the dear old DWP ]

Many computer systems are horrifically designed, and often severely outdated.

Then you have them tweaked and altered to to things they were never originally intended to do, as well as new systems overlaying old ones...

Over years it eventually becomes an incomprehensible mess that just barely functions, but the cost of replacing it wholesale is astronomical, as well as possibly not being able to do it without downtime and you end up with what we have now.

But it's in no way limited to government systems, unfortunately.

Pretty accurate, the computer system that pays JSA was introduced around 25 years ago, changes made to it are horrendously expensive and the quite rightly there is no political will to put tax payers money into a soon to be obsolete system.  

Muttleythefrog

Where there is a will there is a way... for example the DWP seems capable of issuing Cold Weather Payments to relevant claimants on relevant benefits. There must be systems like that (it's just one off top of head) which could have been temporarily used.... after all the government quite rightly tried to use existing systems where possible to target Covid support. These benefits are able to be uprated annually anyway - when there is political desire! What was lacking here was political desire and interest... probably alongside the usual state sector ambivalence, closed thinking, bureaucratic infinity and resistance to change... oh and yes the usual badly designed system even for its day let alone futureproofing. 

Robbie64

Although the Government has given a myriad of reasons why the temporary increase was not applied to legacy benefits, the simple fact is that it wasn't done because of cost reasons. It would have cost billions of pounds.

peteuk

poppy12345 said:

gbhxu said:

Small claims court, anyone? 

Why? There's already a court case and there's been no decision made on that yet.

I was on the understanding that if a case was in court, then you couldnt try it in another.  Surely youd get to the small claims and the judge will dismiss the case as its being heard somewhere else. 

poppy12345

peteuk said:

poppy12345 said:

gbhxu said:

Small claims court, anyone? 

Why? There's already a court case and there's been no decision made on that yet.

I was on the understanding that if a case was in court, then you couldnt try it in another.  Surely youd get to the small claims and the judge will dismiss the case as its being heard somewhere else. 

Which is why as ask "why" when someone said "small claims court anyone"