Written evidence from National Association of Welfare Rights Advisers [UCW0039]

 

  1. The National Association of Welfare Rights Advisers (NAWRA) was established in 1975 as the Welfare Rights Officers’ Group, and then the National Welfare Rights Officers’ Group before becoming NAWRA in 1992. It represents advisers from local authorities, the voluntary sector, trade unions, solicitors, and other organisations that provide legal advice on social security and tax credits. NAWRA currently has more than 200 member organisations.

 

  1. We strive to challenge, influence and improve welfare rights policy and legislation, as well as identifying and sharing good practice amongst our members.

 

  1. NAWRA holds four conferences throughout the year across the UK, attended by members from all sectors of the industry. An integral part of these events are workshops that help to develop and lead good practice.

 

  1. Our members have much experience in providing both front line legal advice on benefits and in providing training and information as well as policy support and development. As such NAWRA is able to bring much knowledge and insight to this consultation exercise.

 

  1. NAWRA is happy to be contacted to provide clarification on anything contained within this document. NAWRA is happy for details and contents of this response to be made public.

 

Executive summary

 

  1. This response is informed by a survey of NAWRA members carried out over just two weeks (due to the short deadline) in March 2020 that received 51 responses. It is also informed by the discussion forum on the rightsnet website[1] - used by welfare rights advisers across the UK to get casework support, share the experiences of their claimants, and to network with other advisers – which is an ideal source of contemporaneous evidence.

 

Have the mitigations so far helped?

 

  1. NAWRA asked members to indicate on a sliding scale whether they thought the mitigations so far had been not effective at all through to very effective (0 equated to not effective at all and 10 equated to very effective).

 

  1. Advance payments were rated low effectiveness. NAWRA members noted that while advance payments could ease the difficult first five weeks, the payback was very hard and led to poverty and destitution. Many commented that claimants did not fully understand the implications of taking a large advance and there is no flexibility to reduce payments. Additionally, other debts sometimes ‘appear’ when a universal credit claim starts – typically old tax credit overpayments – which only exacerbate the hardship. Members commented that claimants need to have full budgeting advice so that they can understand the choices they are making in taking an advance payment but this does not happen. Claimants were often encouraged to take advances without full advice – one member commented that they had seen care leavers repeatedly asked if they wanted an advance. The overall view was that advance payments put people into debt and ‘caused misery down the line’.

 

  1. The two-week run-on of housing benefit was rated medium effectiveness. This was generally seen to be a good thing as it could help reduce rent arrears occurring. However, while it helped with rent, claimants were still having to resort to foodbanks for essentials. In addition, claimants did not always understand what it was, or realise that it was being paid. Another issues was that, without advice, it was often missed eg if the reason for moving on to UC was due to failing a work capability assessment and ESA stopping, then housing benefit is suspended. Without advice to ensure the housing benefit was put back into payment prior to the UC claim the run-on was not always paid. Members also pointed out that this measure only benefits claimants who had been in receipt of housing benefit immediately before migrating to universal credit.

 

  1. More frequent payments were rated as medium effectiveness. A number of members said that they had experienced difficulty in getting requests for these alternative payment arrangements set up and thought they should be agreed automatically - as in Scotland, N Ireland and under consideration in Wales – without having to show vulnerability. Even if one was agreed, it didn’t help with the five week wait as the first payment is not paid any earlier – it is just that after five weeks the claimant only receives half their monthly entitlement! Members also commented that twice monthly payments were confusing compared to fortnightly that claimants were used to. However, it was also observed that once up and running, having more frequent payments was a big help in assisting claimants to budget more effectively.

 

 

What are the main problems claimants still experience as a result of the five week wait?

 

  1. The overwhelming problem raised by members was the lack of money for essentials – this was particularly difficult if the five week wait coincided with the school holidays. Claimants have to rely on charities, local welfare schemes and foodbanks. The lack of money also led to claimants either taking an advance that they couldn’t afford to repay or using credit cards or other high interest loans. For some it was leading to persecution by creditors where they already had debts. Where claimants had short-term insecure tenancies (eg six month assured shorthold) the delays put their housing security at risk as they were unlikely to have their tenancy extended. There were also problems with having money for heating/hot water or for travel which particularly impacted those in rural areas. Generally, the five week wait sent claimants into a spiral of debt causing deep anxiety and other mental health problems.

 

What measures would best offset the impact of the five week wait?

 

  1. NAWRA asked members to indicate on a sliding scale what measures would be effective in offsetting the impact of the five week wait (0 equated to not effective at all and 10 equated to very effective).

 

  1. Making advances non-repayable was estimated as high effectiveness. Avoiding people going into debt at the start of a claim would have a huge impact on mental health and people’s ability to cope. People on low incomes often have exceptional budgeting skills but under the current system are being set up to fail – making advances non-repayable would help alleviate that. However, there was some concern about how to avoid this scenario being exploited eg by people making repeat claims

 

  1. Making advances non-repayable to vulnerable claimants was estimated as high effectiveness. Members commented that establishing criteria to effectively assess vulnerability would be difficult

 

  1. Extending run on payment to all legacy benefits was estimated as high effectiveness although it was highlighted that this would not assist people whose legacy benefits had come to an end just before they claimed universal credit.

 

  1. Reducing the rate at which advance payments are repaid was estimated as medium to high effectiveness.

 

  1. Paying UC two weekly was estimated as high effectiveness. Members recognized that for some the monthly payment system worked but suggested there should be flexibility with claimants allowed to choose as in Scottish Choices. Also payments should be made midway through the first assessment period and then at the end of the assessment period – as opposed to at the end of the assessment period and then two weeks later as now.

 

  1. Other options put forward to help offset the impact of the five week wait were –

 

 

Should there be different rules for different groups of claimants?

 

  1. 30% of respondents to the survey felt there should be different rules for different groups of claimants with a further 33% responding ‘maybe’. Groups identified as needing additional support included –

 

 

  1. However, other members commented that this would bring further complexity and possibilities of discrimination – some people may have invisible disabilities or be struggling to get a diagnosis. But there was a strong feeling that the system needed to be more flexible eg enabling phone claims more easily, having a paper claim option, minimising the use of sanctions, offering different methods of making contact.

 

  1. It was also pointed out that where there are different rules already they are not always operating effectively eg allowing advance claims for care leavers.

 

  1. There could also be simplifications where there are different rules eg the only way to assess someone as having a disability/long term health condition is via the work capability assessment. NAWRA would argue that anyone in receipt of PIP has already been assessed as disabled and therefore should have additional amounts in their award from the start.

 

Are there any barriers or unintended consequences to removing the five week wait?

 

  1. Allowing more frequent payments should not present any barrier  - Scotland and Northern Ireland are able to do it so no reason why it could not be done UK wide.

 

  1. Making advances non-repayable would clearly have a financial impact on the DWP budget but it would be interesting to see the costings on this. There would also have to be safeguards against abuse of the system.

 

  1. Removing the need for unnecessary disability assessments would be a cost saving.

 

  1. It may be that one of the biggest barriers is the DWP’s insistence that monthly pay is the norm which is not the case for the lowest paid workers and that the advance payment is not a debt. The current COVID-19 crisis has shown that the DWP can be flexible and make changes when it has to – NAWRA would welcome the same responsiveness and flexibility to addressing this very real issue.

 

Conclusion

 

  1. The current five week wait causes extreme hardship to claimants and has a massive impact on their mental health and ability to cope. It sets people up to fail before they have had a chance. NAWRA believes it is imperative to take action to change this situation and it calls on the government to –

 

  1. The current COVID-19 situation has shown that the DWP can be more flexible and responsive to the difficulties claimants may be experiencing. Continuing that policy of support and flexibility forwards could make a substantial difference to claimants’ experiences of universal credit.

 

April 2020

 

 

[1] https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums

[2] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/381/contents