Universal Credit - Super Sanctions

PessimisticDiner

I would be grateful for some informed advice concerning an unusually long-running Universal Credit sanction.

Claimant inadvertently missed attend a Jobcentre appointment in early 2023, and received a low-level sanction as a result. It was the first sanction he had ever received. He had been told previously at the Jobcentre that a Commitments Review would be forthcoming, and that there would be an absolute requirement to accept compulsory new commitments upon attending. He was told that failure to accept new commitments at the Commitments Review would lead to the closure of his claim, which was terrifying to him because he relied entirely upon the Housing Costs element of Universal Credit to keep himself and a vulnerable dependant housed. They had endured a period of rough sleeping prior to entering the accommodation in question, and were evidently traumatised by the experience. Anyone working the field knows that prolonged rough sleeping can be severely traumatic for many people, and the fear of returning to it can result in heightened anxiety and impaired lucidity.

At the time of the missed appointment, he was living with the vulnerable dependant in a B&B, sharing a tiny room without kitchen facilities, and surviving almost exclusively on cold canned food. Alongside this, he was chronically sleep-deprived, because his dependant required (and still requires) repeated and prolonged attention throughout each night. He was struggling greatly with concentration, focus, and anxiety. He was finding even his existing commitments difficult to perform, and was convinced that additional commitments would prove impossible to agree to and hence doom him to having his claim (and lifeline for accommodation) closed, as described above.

He was therefore frightened to perform the task that would end the sanction (rebooking and attending the appointment), believing that doing so would temporarily lift his sanction but quickly lead to the inevitable total closure of his claim (and, hence, a return to rough sleeping). Instead, he reluctantly resigned himself to the prolongation of the sanction, which essentially amounted to the forfeiture of his Standard Allowance; thereafter, he basically received only the Housing Costs element. He used this to pay for accommodation and relied on small assistance from a relative to cover food and essential living expenses. Needless to say, he was badly advised, and evidently not in a frame of mind to be able to digest the necessary information for himself. The situation has now lasted for over 3 years. The amount of money lost has been substantial, and the situation has caused severe suffering.

Having recently received better advice, he is seeking Local Authority support, and hopes to receive help towards securing suitable accommodation and increased financial security in the near future. An application is also in the works for support regarding ongoing caring responsibilities towards the aforementioned dependant. As these responsibilities have not yet been certified, however, the system still considers that he should be searching for work.

My question is this: The low-level sanction imposed in 2023 has now been in force for well over 1095 days. My understanding is that no sanction, irrespective of type, can continue beyond 1095 days, as per the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 > Part 8 > Claimant Responsibilities > Chapter 2 > Sanctions > Reduction Periods:

“…General principles for calculating reduction periods:
101.
(1) The number of days for which a reduction in the amount of an award is to have effect (“the reduction period”) is to be determined in relation to each sanctionable failure in accordance with regulations 102 to 105, but subject to paragraphs (3)
…
(3) If the reduction period calculated in relation to a sanctionable failure in accordance with regulations 102 to 105 would result in the total outstanding reduction period exceeding 1095 days, the reduction period in relation to that failure is to be adjusted so that the total outstanding reduction period does not exceed 1095 days.”

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/376/part/8/chapter/2/crossheading/reduction-periods/2014-03-11/data.html

Obviously, being a low-level sanction, it is the open-ended part that has resulted in the sanction lasting for such a long time. Most of the available guidance regarding the 1095-day TORP cites examples using fixed periods of sanctions instead. Nonetheless, the wording of the UC Regulations does not differentiate. It states that “the reduction period… in accordance with regulations 102 to 105” [which includes low-level sanctions containing open-ended parts in regulation 104] is “subject to paragraphs (3)”, which states that “the reduction period... is to be adjusted so that the total outstanding reduction period does not exceed 1095 days.” This indicates to me that 1095 days (i.e. precisely 3 years) is the longest that any sanction can remain in place without becoming unlawful.

If this is correct, the sanction should have expired months ago. Yet, it is still in place. Is this lawful? If so, please can someone provide a link to official legislation or associated published literature showing that it is lawful?

Claimant has asked for clarification on this point at a Jobcentre. Concerningly, it appears that the agents working there do not know the answer, informing him that it would need to be escalated to senior management in order to find out.

Finally, Claimant’s historic journal posts show a high level of vulnerability in the household, and no realistic possibility of him taking up work whilst leaving his vulnerable dependant unattended in what would reasonably be considered dangerous and unfit accommodation. His posts clearly display extreme levels of distress and contain repeated unanswered requests for advice and clarification. At no point following early 2023 did anyone from UC make enquiries as to the effects of the sanction on his circumstances, or as to why he was not engaging with the system to end it. Whilst he was receiving the Standard Allowance, he was regularly invited to appointments. Once his Standard Allowance had been sanctioned away, UC no longer bothered to initiate contact with him at all. Guidance online suggests that this was wrong:

“If an open-ended sanction is applied, staff must use every opportunity to encourage the claimant to attend the appointment they missed in order to stop the sanction… If the claim is open, the claimant must be contacted and encouraged to engage where they have not made contact within 6 weeks. Staff must routinely check their caseload to identify these claimants.”

https://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2022-0452/128-Sanctions_V20.0.pdf

Any informed advice on how to go about addressing the points above would be most welcome, ideally with citations that can be passed on.

Thank you.

itsthelittlethings

Should be claiming carers allowance - no need to work or seek work on carers allowance.

sammyjammy

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82059470#Comment_82059470

You can't just claim it you need to be entitled to it.

magicmoneyportaloo

This looks complex and if they have access to independent benefits advice then they should access it.

I think they could ask for a mandatory reconsideration for the original sanction given their circumstances at that time, and ask for forgiveness on the time limit for asking for a mandatory reconsideration given their circumstances also.

huckster

Low level sanctions for not attending work related Job Centre appointments are open ended. There is no maximum period. The sanction continues running until the claimant is back in compliance I.e. attends Job Centre appointment.

1095 days is the maximum period for multiple other types of sanction which are individually applied for fixed periods.

Link to CPAG website below. If low level sanctions were limited their website would say so. They take Government to Court regularly to challenge benefit issues.

Universal credit and sanctions | CPAG https://share.google/yMzzVCTcubTu9jaQT

itsthelittlethings

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82059504#Comment_82059504

I'm aware you need to be entitled. By the sound of it they should proceed with achieving the underlying entitlement and then claim carers.

Try an MP or something.

NedS

As @huckster says, low level sanctions are open ended and will continue to run indefinitely until the claimant does whatever it was they originally failed to do. In this case was failure to attend an appointment.

To end the sanction, they will need to contact UC to rebook the appointment and attend that appointment at the jobcentre. They can use the appointment to discuss any wider issues and seek further support from the jobcentre.

vex13

I cannot be 100% sure of this as I have not seen it in practice, however I believe some of the replies here are misguided. Low level sanction letters can include a 'delete if not applicable' paragraph about reducing the total duration if it exceeds 3 years. If you see enough of them you will find one where that paragraph has not been removed (where it obviously should have been - staff error I assume).

The quoted legislation does include low level sanctions - (that is reg 104) - but as with legislation in general it must be read very specifically.

104 explains how a low level sanction must be calculated. If none of the conditions in 104 have been met then no calculation can be made. The reduction period cannot and has not been calculated so the quoted legislation is not in affect at this point. Note the first few words .. "If the reduction period calculated".

However, if and when the conditions are met for the sanction to end and the duration to be calculated the legislation should apply. At that point the duration will be calculated and as per the quoted law it should not exceed 1095 days. (In theory this would generate an underpayment in a case such as yours).

Read the full quote again with this in mind and you'll see it makes sense:

"If the reduction period calculated in relation to a sanctionable failure in accordance with regulations 102 to 105 would result in the total outstanding reduction period exceeding 1095 days, the reduction period in relation to that failure is to be adjusted so that the total outstanding reduction period does not exceed 1095 days."

It is talking about adjusting the duration after the calculation has been made.

As for the second quote in your post -

"If the claim is open, the claimant must be contacted and encouraged to engage where they have not made contact within 6 weeks. Staff must routinely check their caseload to identify these claimants.”

This isn't legislation but still, you need to be specific. Must be contacted when they have not made contact within 6 weeks. They probably did that. There is nothing about them having to do it again, or repeatedly. Regardless for your case the person clearly knew the situation and was aware of what they needed to do - so I don't think you have a good argument on this point.

Your way forward:

- This person needs to engage with the jobcentre and have the sanction ended. Commitments do not necessarily mean work search. Support with the appointment and explain the circumstances in full.
- That will end the sanction, and if I am correct possibly result in an underpayment which would help financially.
- Crucially, the sanction letter at this stage includes appeal rights. You could then request a Mandatory Reconsideration without worry about it being out of time. Explain everything here about the reasons for lack of engagement and the vulnerabilities etc.
- Get the caring activity declared. He does not need Carers Allowance for this. The disabled person does need a disability benefit in place though and to have no other carer. Even if that is not the case, if an application for the disability benefit has been made the jobcentre should be able to apply some discretion on this while awaiting the outcome to reduce commitments.
- Report the persons own health issues and provide a GP note(if applicable but it sounds like it) - and apply for the WCA. That would also be another way to reduce any commitments.

NedS

The reduction period exceeding 1095 days applies to the fixed part of any sanction only, not to an open ended sanction which will apply indefinitely on a day by day basis until the claimant complies with whatever failure caused the sanction in the first place.

For example, if a claimant fails to attend a mandatory appointment, that carries an open-ended low level sanction for failure to attend plus a fixed period of 7, 14 or 28 days depending how many previous low-level sanctions the claimant has received. The remaining fixed period would not be allowed to exceed 1095 days. So if the claimant has no previous fixed sanction days remaining, and failed to attend an appointment, once they re-engaged to end the open ended sanction, the full 7, 14 or 28 day fixed period would apply as this would not exceed the maximum of 1095 days.

If on the other hand the claimant already had a large amount of sanctioned days remaining, for example 1090 days, and then failed to attend a mandatory appointment incurring an open-ended sanction, the open-ended sanction would apply, day by day until the claimant rebooked and attended the missed appointment, and the remaining fixed period of 1090 days would neither increase or decrease as it is the open-ended sanction that applies and is being served. Once the claimant re-engages and the open-ended sanction ends, the DM would determine the fixed period (7,14 or 28 days) that applies to that latest failure and add that to the outstanding 1090 days, capping it at the maximum 1095 sanctionable days still to serve. The DM cannot calculate the sanctionable period until after the claimant has re-engaged to end the open-ended sanction as they have no way of knowing in advance when the claimant may re-engage or comply with whatever failure caused the open-ended sanction in the first place.

So an open-ended sanction will apply indefinitely until the claimant complies with whatever failure caused the sanction in the first place.

Hope that makes sense.