Forced unpaid labour for the Jubilee

Media reports about unemployed people being made to do unpaid work as stewards on the Jubilee Pageant.  And also made to sleep rough as part of it. 

This is an inevitable result of all the main political parties' obsession with punishing unemployed people through forced labour.  Sign a petition against this by clicking here.

Gender? Name?

I just love some of the correspondence we get from the DWP.

Like the one I have had addressed to "Mr N Bateman".  (Yes "Mr".  It's significant.  Read on).  So they know my name and they know my gender and they managed to get them both right.  Well done guys!

Then we have the salutation in the letter:  "Dear Sir or Madam".

And they say benefit claimants are confused.

More scandalous ESA evidence

Two more cases in the press which will have a familiar ring for advice workers.  It's quite outrageous that the government and DWP officials can still assert that the Work Capability Assessment is reliable and that those who fail the test are fit for work. 

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2137377/Man-suffering-blood-clots-open-ulcers-loses-benefits-job-centre-labels-fit-work.html#ixzz1td5m6v00

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/29/benefits-system-fit-for-work

The effect of the National Minimum Wage on benefits expenditure

Anyone who knows anything about the benefits system, knows that means tested benefits and tax credits decrease when earnings increase.

Therefore, it follows that an increase in the National Minimum Wage of £x an hour would reduce benefits expenditure by £y million and tax credits expenditure by £z million.

Given the significance of this I asked both DWP and HMRC, using the Freedom of Information Act, to provide me with any information they have about this.  Replies have now come back and they both state they do not hold such information.

Of course research into this subject would not be straightforward and estimates which came out of it would be subject to uncertainty.  But am I missing something by expressing surprise that neither the DWP nor HMRC have done any research about this?

Unpaid labour. A free workforce for employers and funded by the taxpayer.

The government looks set to announce a significant move to extend compulsory unpaid labour for people on Jobseekers Allowance.  www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/26/work-free-programme-expanded-government?newsfeed=true

The arguments have all been made elsewhere against this, self-defeating, punitive and stigmatising provision of an unpaid workforce which does not create any jobs.  But then it's a great way to force people off benefit and into the shadowlands of "no work no welfare" while also shifting the blame for unemployment onto jobseekers.

This can only come about because the opposition from the mainstream has so far been pretty hopeless.  Voluntary bodies, local authorities, advice agencies, trade unions and the Labour Party, with a few notable exceptions, have failed to build an alliance of principled and organised opposition to this.

Mark my words, if the government gets away with this, they'll be back for more.

Tax fraud vs benefit fraud

Next time you hear someone banging on about benefit fraud (annual cost £1.5 billion), remind them of the latest estimate of the "tax gap" (annual cost £35 billion). www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/news/hmrc-compliance/

Even the Daily Mail was shocked - though some of the self-justifying comments by readers are in stark contrast to what we would see if it was an article about benefit fraud . www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2149038/Cheats-avoided-paying-taxes-year-created-35billion-hole-public-purse.html

There's also a further £25 billion owed by corporations: www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/news/hmrc-tax-disputes-report/

Yes, it's a class thing.

Doctors demand that the Work Capability Assessment is scrapped

British Medical Association's conference for GPs votes for the immediate scrapping of the WCA.  Yet still the government, DWP officials and all the main parties pretend it works or just needs tweaking.  Come on, take the doctors' advice.

web2.bma.org.uk/pressrel.nsf/wlu/GGRT-8UKF4B?OpenDocument&vw=wfmsc

Any medals for the sponsor?

Extraordinary news that ATOS, the French owned company responsible for DWP medical examinations are to sponsor the Paralympics.

www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/may/21/paralympic-games-organisers-defend-atos-sponsorship?intcmp=239

There is massive evidence of inappropriate medical evidence being submitted to DWP benefit decision makers by ATOS health care professionals which then results in disabled people having their benefits stopped.  It will be interesting to learn how ATOS feel they can sponsor the premier sports event for disabled people without a shadow of a blush.

Latest example of the role of ATOS is in a report by a group of Scottish GPs:  Note the reference to the ATOS Medical Assessment Centre in Glasgow as "Lourdes":  where the sick go in and come out cured.

www.rightsnet.org.uk/?ACT=39&fid=28&aid=364_43V9KhdkodIXca7zxXLw&board_id=1

Universal Credit - back to giros

A relaible source has revealed to the Welfare Righter that because the DWP's computer system is unlikely to be ready in time for the start of the national roll-out of Universal Credit (October 2013), payments of the new benefit will be made "manually".

It remains to be seen what wonders will be foisted onto welfare world by the DWP's IT problems and the government's unwise rush to get the new system going.

You couldn't make it up, but they can

Dreadful story about benefit fraud investigators in Basildon pursuing a case where there was no fraud:  www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9264797/Council-claimed-key-whistleblower-who-did-not-exist-in-benefit-fraud-case.html

Here they go again

DWP Press Office has released figures alleging that thousands of those found "fit for work" as part of the transfer to Employment and Support Allowance (disputable - see post below) have been on sickness related benefits for years: www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2012/may-2012/dwp047-12.shtml

Aside from the usual misleading nature of this, the timing is interesting.  It comes on the same day that the Daily Telegraph headlined on their front page how 500,000 people will lose entitlement to Disability Living Allowance as a result of changes and the introduction of Personal Independence Payment starting in 2013 (www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9263453/500000-to-lose-disability-benefit.html).  This was as a result of an interview with IDS himself.

Most members of the public will not have sufficient knowledge to distinguish between DLA and ESA and are likely to think that the changes to DLA are being brought in to deal with people who are not "really disabled" and are fit for work.  Indeed, there is a scent of this in the Telegraph article.

So one must wonder why the DWP chose to issue this press release today after the Telegraph article.  Was it incompetence or  a desire to deliberately conflate the issues in the minds of the wider public?  We need to know.

Evidence of errors in benefit overpayments

Every experienced welfare rights adviser knows that the scale of errors in benefit overpayment decision is massive - time and again the amounts are inflated or even when correct, the overpayments are not legally recoverable. In my experience the vast majority of the amounts allegedly overpaid in the cases I have dealt with have been wrong - either the amounts have been assessed incorrectly and the law not properly followed, or the person is still entitled to some or all of the overpaid benefit.

Using the Freedom of Information Act  2000, I have obtained figures from DWP about the scale of errors in benefit overpayments.  The data lags behind so the latest is a while ago, but the trends are consistent. 

One of the sources is the DWP's report on standards of decision making published in March 2010 . 

(www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/secretary-of-state-report-on-decision-making.pdf)

DWP's own figures on the percentage of benefit overpayment decisions which are accurate

 

2006/7	68
2005	78
2004/5	74
2003	67
2002	68

 

Furthermore, Tribunal statistics show that between 32% and 35% of appeals against benefit overpayments succeed, which rises to 47% when someone is represented.  Again, using the Freedom of Information Act, I have also established that in addition, a very high number of appeals against benefit overpayments are revised in the appellants' favour without having to go to Tribunal.  

Whichever way you look at it, the figures illustrate the importance of always appealing against an overpayment decision and that one must not accept at face value, the amounts allegedly overpaid or the state's right to be get money off people. 

Worryingly, this includes cases of fraudulent overpayments.  Sadly too few criminal defence lawyers and the criminal courts understand the importance and relevance of the benefits appeals process. 

Lies, damned lies and ESA statistics

Advice and disability bodies have repeatedly expressed concern about the DWP's presentation of statistics about Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) figures.  As you may know, ESA is the replacement benefit for people with long term health and disability issues which involves very harsh eligibility criteria

It is felt that the way that DWP selectively presents the figures, along with their commentary, fuels public bigotry towards people with disabilities and paints a picture that most claimants are not really sick, just workshy.  Given the repeated objections from many different organisations, either the DWP really don't get it or they are deliberately putting out this misleading spin on the figures.

The DWP press release issued in April 2012 was in the same vein: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2012/apr-2012/dwp042-12.shtml

In particular the claim that 54% of those assessed are found "fit for work".  This is arrant nonsense.
The press release triggered an unpleasant and misleading article in the Daily Mail about which towns had the highest numbers who were swinging the lead (apparently it's Basildon).  Interestingly, as far as I can see, the Mail's article appeared before the statistics were officially released.  So how did they get hold of the figures for their story?

The DWP press release fails to factor in the 38% who succeed when they appeal - 38% of 46% is 17.48%.  This strongly suggests that even on the DWP's figures, 63% are "unfit for work".  That aside, what the DWP won't acknowledge publicly is the feedback from their own staff about the terrible health problems of many found "fit for work" who then try to claim Jobseekers Allowance, not to mention the well-documented evidence about poor quality medical findings from their contractor, ATOS. 

Above all, (and of course there's no way the DWP would agree with this), the Work Capability Assessment used for ESA is not actually an assessment of people's ability to work; it is an assessment of whether they have scored points for a limited number of activities and whether they have "limited capability for work", not whether they are fit for work. 

As an example, if you can sit in a chair for 31 minutes before you need to move because of discomfort, you score nil points under that heading, if you can scrawl your name with a pen, you get nil points for that and if you can understand a simple message from a stranger such as: "There's a fire in the office, get out", but you can't understand "How do you change the settings on this photocopier?", you score nil points for understanding communication.

More cap claptrap

Following the exposure on Radio 4's Moneybox programme, today saw a DWP press release about the letters being sent out announcing the cap.

"Letters are being sent this week to households who may be affected by the benefit cap, Minister for Welfare Reform Lord Freud has announced..."

Is the use of the word "may" a Whitehall-style attempt to explain why letters have also gone to families of disabled children who should be exempt?

Here is CPAG's statement about the letters.  You decide who is right.

Household Benefit Cap: letters from DWP to claimants

Key points CPAG has discovered from contact by local authorities and advisers:

• DWP have started sending out letters to claimants warning them that they are likely to be affected by the household benefit cap.
• DWP have also sent a letter to MPs with a Q & A intended to help them with any constituent queries and casework this generates.
• Benefits staff and advice staff in local authorities have contacted CPAG to say that they are finding major errors in DWP’s identification of households that stand to be affected and have received the letters (they have contacted us in confidence so we are not currently able to name those authorities).
• Households with a DLA recipient are due to be exempt from the cap. It appears that DWP screened out adult DLA claimants, but failed to screen out families with a child getting DLA.
• Several local authorities are saying that this is not the only error. Others errors so far identified by local authorities in the DWP lists  include:
• claimants whose total entitlement is well below the level of the cap
• claims that are no longer active
• claims that are in receipt of working tax credit and would therefore be exempt
• One local authority told us that of 200 households identified by DWP in their area, they found when they checked that only 78 of them meet the criteria that would see them affected by the cap.
• In a London local authority, out of 1100 DWP identified households, nearly 300 were found to be well below the level of the cap.
• Many affected families, especially in London, will see very large losses to entitlement – perhaps of their entire housing benefit, leaving them no funds whatsoever for housing costs. But the letters say nothing to indicate whether the household receiving the letter is due to lose £5 a week, or £200 a week. So it does not help the households with the most serious threat realise the scale of the problem they will face.

CPAG statement:
“There is an astonishing rate of error in the households that DWP has identified as those likely to be subject to the household benefit cap from April 2013. This will cause distress and confusion to families who are not actually threatened by the cap. We are also concerned for those families who are at risk, because the letters offer very little helpful advice about what they can do. The Department must urgently investigate why it has made so many errors to prevent further failures with the implementation of the Universal Credit, which will affect millions of households. It highlights once again the precarious situation we are entering with advice services for claimants subject to severe cuts at a time when the whole welfare system is about to change.”

Added 9 May:
By the way, I did hear right about the DWP's misleading, post-facto excuse for sending out letters to the wrong people.  From the transcript of the Moneybox programme:

"...they want to make sure they include everybody, so they have included more than will actually be subject to the cap."

In which case, why not say so in the letters?  Sorry, but I for one do not beleive this excuse.

Cap claptrap

A follow up to the item below (http://thoughtsofawelfarerighter.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/caps-it-all.html ) concerning the DWP writing to families with disabled children, scaring the life out of them by wrongly telling them they are going to have their benefits cut next April when the benefits cap comes in. 

Assuming my hearing is still intact, on BBC Radio 4 Moneybox today it was reported that the DWP said they had deliberately written out to more people than those affected.  What?

Is this really true?