BNS0019 - Evidence on Benefit sanctions

Safeguarding guidance to protect people with mental health problems has existed, in one form or another, since 2000. Royal Greenwich Welfare Rights Service (GWRS) began investigating the guidance in 2014 as we had identified that there was very little awareness of the guidance, even among mental health charities [2], Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) staff, and welfare rights advisers.

GWRS has been the lead organisation working on this policy area and the issues raised have meant that the safeguards have been:

covered in a report by the Work and Pensions Select Committee [3]
covered in Disability Rights UK (DRUK) submissions to the National Audit Office (NAO) [4] and Work and Pensions Select Committee
the basis for an unsuccessful amendment to the Welfare Reform and Work Bill 2015 [5]
included in the DRUK handbook for advisers [6] and the subject of an article in the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) magazine for advisers [7]

Although proud of the work we have done in this area we do not have the resources to give the topic the focus it deserves and welcome other interested groups taking up the issues covered in this briefing paper.

Employment and Support Allowance safeguarding guidance

Safeguards can apply when a claimant deemed to be vulnerable fails to comply with a requirement and, as a result, their benefit payments are at risk.

For the purposes of the existing Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) safeguards vulnerable claimants are those who have a mental health condition, learning disability, or condition affecting cognition (such as Autistic Spectrum Disorder or addiction). The DWP lists these conditions on the ESA Incapacity Reference Guide [8]. This definition of vulnerability is different to that used in the DWP vulnerability guidance [9] which was introduced more recently.

The safeguards are mostly based around the use of home visits to vulnerable claimants carried out by the DWP Visiting Team (part of the Pension Service). These visits are called 'core visits’[10]. When the DWP attempt to visit a vulnerable client they must make two attempts to visit [11]. If the DWP has not correctly followed safeguarding procedures before sanctioning or terminating a claim then benefit should be immediately reinstated once this is pointed out to them.

There are four scenarios when safeguarding can occur. The following sections attempt to provide details for each.

Vulnerable ESA claimant fails to attend or participate in a mandatory interview with Jobcentre Plus or fails to undertake Work Related Activity set by Jobcentre Plus [12]

Potential consequences for the vulnerable claimant if not safeguarded

A sanction could be applied if the claimant does not or cannot show good cause. An ESA sanction applies to 100% of the prescribed amount for a single claimant (usually £73.10 per week [13]) for an indefinite period [14] until the claimant complies. After the claimant complies there is a further sanction of one, two, or four weeks. Claimants can apply for hardship payments if they are aware of them and capable of making an application, there can be a delay of a few weeks before the claimant is paid a hardship payment.

The safeguarding process

If a decision maker is considering not accepting good cause for a failure they must refer a vulnerable claimant for a core visit before any sanction decision is made [15]. The guidance states that a referral must take place every time benefit is at risk in order to safeguard those claimants with fluctuating mental health conditions [16]. At the home visit the visiting officer will check whether the claimant understood the requirement [17] and collect good cause information [18]. In the event of two ineffective visits or where core visits cannot take place the case will be passed back to a Higher Executive Officer (HEO), a higher grade than the usual decision maker [19]. The HEO must review the safeguarding actions taken and, if visits have been ineffective, contact an appointee or family member, psychiatric nurse, social services and police. The guidance notes that the contact with third parties is because the DWP has a 'moral obligation to make third parties aware of potential incidents around vulnerable claimants'[20]. The guidance states that the notifications to third parties do not contravene the Data Protection Act, providing that there is evidence to support the referral [21]. Only once the HEO has reviewed all safeguarding steps will the case be sent to a labour market decision maker to decide whether a sanction should be applied [22].

Failure to return the capability for work questionnaire (also known as ESA50 form) as part of the Work Capability Assessment process

Potential consequences for the vulnerable claimant if not safeguarded

Suspension potentially followed by termination of the claim if no form is provided. Requesting, completing, returning, and processing a new form can mean that claimants are without benefit for weeks.

The safeguarding process

If a claimant has a 'mental health flag' on their record their case will be automatically referred to the next stage of the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) process [23].

Vulnerable claimant fails to attend a Work Capability Assessment

Potential consequences for the vulnerable claimant if not safeguarded

The claim could be terminated if the claimant does not or cannot show good cause.

The safeguarding process

If a claimant has a 'mental health flag' on their record the decision maker will check whether the claimant has a) had a sanctions safeguard visit for non-attendance at a mandatory interview, b) received a phone call collecting good cause information, or c) returned a form providing good cause information [24]. If any of the above apply then the decision maker will consider good cause as normal since the claimant has had their responsibilities explained to them or responded to provide 'good cause' reasons [25]. If none of the above has happened and the decision maker is considering not accepting good cause then the claimant will be referred for a pre-disallowance safeguard visit [26] to check whether they understood their responsibilities and to collect good cause information [27]. When the decision maker receives the report from the home visit they will consider good cause.

Vulnerable ESA work programme claimant fails to comply with an activity they have been mandated to undertake by a Work Programme Provider

Potential consequences for the vulnerable claimant if not safeguarded

A sanction could be applied if the claimant does not or cannot show good cause. See above for an explanation of ESA sanctions.

The safeguarding process

Safeguarding is described in guidance as a 'high level must do'[28]. Before raising a compliance doubt (which could lead to a sanction) for a vulnerable claimant a Work Programme Provider (WPP) must ensure that the claimant understood the requirement placed on them and the possible consequences of not complying [29]. The WPP must use information from the DWP referral, DWP updates, and their own information to determine whether a claimant is vulnerable [30]. At a minimum the WPP must have a face to face discussion with the claimant for each mandated activity. This can be done by a home visit if necessary. If the claimant was mandated to carry out an activity in a face to face appointment then there is no requirement to have another face to face meeting if they then fail to comply [31]. If the WPP meets with the claimant face to face and decides that they did understand the requirements and possible consequences then they will raise a compliance doubt so that a DWP decision maker can consider a sanction. In this circumstance they do not have to explain to the DWP what safeguarding steps have taken place [32]. If the WPP has attempted to safeguard and has been unsuccessful in meeting the claimant, they will raise a compliance doubt which explains their attempts to carry out safeguarding. The DWP will then consider whether to apply a sanction [33]. If the WPP carries out safeguarding and decides that the claimant did not understand the mandatory activity then the WPP should not make a compliance doubt referral [34]. The guidance also states that if the claimant has given the WPP written consent to talk to a third party representative then the WPP is free to do so [35].

How have the safeguards changed over time?

The Equality Impact Assessment for the Welfare Reform Act 2012 stated that the DWP would “maintain safeguards for vulnerable people and ensure that mental health conditions are taken into consideration” and that “[t]he additional safeguard which applies to claimants with a mental and behavioural disorder only is that Jobcentre Plus (JCP) or the WPP will contact ESA claimants with a mental health condition, learning disability or condition affecting communication or cognition, or their carer or healthcare professional, before a sanction is considered. The aim is to ensure that claimants fully understand their responsibilities, the implications of non-engagement and to record good cause reasons.”[36]

There have, however, been significant changes to safeguarding procedures since 2012. This section attempts to set out the changes GWRS is aware of.

Work Programme Provider Guidance

Before May 2015 the guidance on safeguarding was set out within Chapter 6 entitled ‘raising a compliance doubt’[37]. This version of the chapter stated that a WPP must attempt a face to face meeting with vulnerable claimants (including carrying out a home visit if needed) before raising a compliance doubt.

A separate safeguarding chapter in the WPP guidance was introduced in May 2015 [38]. This version of the guidance maintained the principle that the WPP must attempt to meet all vulnerable claimants face to face (including carrying out a home visit if needed) before raising a sanction doubt. This chapter introduced sections of the guidance which stated that if the WPP was unable to meet the vulnerable claimant or if the WPP met the claimant and decided that the claimant did not understand the requirements then the WPP should not raise a compliance doubt. Only if the WPP had met the claimant and decided that they understood the requirements should they raise a compliance doubt. The guidance states that if the claimant has given the WPP written consent to talk to a third party representative then the WPP is free to do so.

The chapter was updated in November 2015 [39]. This version made three major changes to the chapter:

WPP only has to attempt to meet vulnerable claimants who have been mandated by post. If a vulnerable claimant had been mandated face to face then no further attempts to see them face to face are required if they later fail to comply. The chapter states that it is good practice to mandate all vulnerable ESA claimants face to face [40].
A compliance doubt has to be raised if a WPP had attempted to safeguard a claimant but been unable to meet with them.
A section referring to newly introduced DWP Compliance Monitoring Officer checks on WPP safeguarding actions.

The Minimum Requirements

The minimum requirements were introduced in 2000 by Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of Social Security) in response to criticism of the Benefits Agency by a coroner following the death of a claimant [41] [42]. The minimum requirements stated that [43]:

“Where the claimant has a known background of mental illness there are minimum requirements that Jobcentre Plus should be adopting to ensure that we are not found to be neglectful in our duty of care towards these claimants. The minimum requirements are:

Where the claimant has been attending a Psychiatric Unit, a liaison officer should be appointed to maintain good communications between Jobcentre Plus and the Patients Affairs Officer.
Where it is known that the claimant has a social worker designated to them we should liaise closely with Social Services Department.
All cases, where there is a known history of mental illness, should be referred to a manager before a decision is made to withdraw benefit. The definition of a manager is Band C or above.”

The minimum requirements appear to have been removed in summer 2016.

Now that the minimum requirements have been removed GWRS are not aware of any reference in guidance to a DWP duty of care towards claimants with a background of mental illness [44]. Neither is there a requirement to liaise with third parties other than for vulnerable claimants who have failed to attend or participate in mandatory interviews or work related activity set by JCP (a relatively small number of claimants). The removal of the requirements also means that, for clients who fail to attend a WCA, there is no requirement for the decision to stop their benefit to be referred to a manager. Instead this can be decided by a decision maker at a lower level.

Problems with the safeguards

Safeguards not required by law

Safeguards exist only in DWP and WPP guidance. This means that claimants have no appeal rights if DWP staff do not implement safeguards. The CPAG evidence to the 2015 Work and Pensions Select Committee report on Benefit sanctions policy beyond the Oakley review stated that:

“Since the requirement to take safeguarding action is only in guidance and not a requirement of the law, even when such action has not been undertaken, this does not necessarily mean that a sanction can be overturned.”[45]

The committee’s report recommended a review of the legislative framework for sanctioning (emphasis added by GWRS):

"112. Given the complexity of the existing legislation, there is a strong case for a review of the underpinning legislative framework for conditionality and sanctions, to ensure that the basis for sanctioning is clearly defined, and safeguards to protect vulnerable groups clearly set out. We recommend that the clarity and coherence of the legislative framework for benefit sanctions policy be included in the terms of reference of the full independent review which we have recommended."[46]

The government rejected this recommendation [47].

Lord Low of Dalston quoted the select committee's recommendation when he put forward an amendment to include safeguards in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill 2015 [48]. Lord Low stated that the proposed amendment was based on the existing guidance and did not seek to impose a higher threshold of safeguarding requirements. He was asked to withdraw his amendment by Baroness Evans of Bowes Park.

Because the safeguards are not required by law the existing guidance can be changed without any scrutiny or notification of changes. One example of this is the removal of the original 'minimum requirements' guidance in 2016. The guidance laid down requirements for DWP to liaise with mental health units and social services and required an extra check before decisions to remove benefit, and included the only instance GWRS were aware of where DWP guidance stated that they had a duty of care towards claimants [49]. GWRS had to use a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to ascertain whether the minimum requirements had been removed or simply moved to another part of the guidance.

GWRS are concerned that there may be future changes to safeguarding guidance without adequate scrutiny, as has been the case with other types of guidance which placed stringent requirements on DWP staff [50]. In the current WPP safeguarding guidance a recent change in the section referring to the 'official definition' of vulnerability [51] for safeguarding replaced this with a reference to the 'Work Programme definition of vulnerable'[52], which may suggest that the DWP plans to change the definition of vulnerability in the successor to the Work Programme, the Work and Health Programme.

The effectiveness of the safeguards

GWRS believe that many DWP staff have limited awareness of safeguarding guidance. Awareness has improved in the past two years among the DWP offices that GWRS come into contact with. GWRS are not able to comment on the awareness of safeguarding guidance among DWP staff in other offices.

Esther McVey, Minister for Employment at the time of the Work and Pensions Select Committee inquiry into sanctions policy, provided figures which stated that there were 45,386 core visits for the period April 2013 to March 2014 [53]. However, Paul Farmer, the CEO of Mind, stated that he was not aware of core visits being applied at all [54].

The Work and Pensions Select Committee report recommended that DWP:

"review the programme of Core Visits as soon as possible, to clarify what changes to conditionality and the application of sanctions occur as a consequence of such Core Visits."[55]

The DWP response to the select committee's recommendation stated that:

“We continue to monitor our internal processes, including the core visit programme, to ensure it operates as an effective safeguard, although we have no plans to conduct a specific review of the process.”

There is also a wider question about the purpose of safeguarding guidance and whether the processes actually 'safeguard' vulnerable claimants.

In addition, there appears to be no guidance for DWP Visiting on how to judge whether a vulnerable claimant understood their requirements or the consequences of not complying.

Statistics collection

The DRUK submission [56] to the NAO study of benefit sanctions [57] covers safeguards and statistics in detail (some of the footnotes have been added by GWRS). This is the relevant section of the DRUK submission:

"significantly there are currently no DWP statistics collected on any of the following:

how many claimants are flagged as ‘vulnerable’;
how often the DWP safeguarding procedures and core visit procedures are used. Esther McVey supplied estimates to the Work and Pensions Select Committee inquiry into benefit sanctions policy beyond the Oakley review but these were just estimates. The figures supplied were estimates for core visits as a whole rather than for core visits carried out for safeguarding purposes.[58] [59];
what the result of safeguarding procedures/core visits were i.e. whether they led to vulnerable claimants being sanctioned or having benefit terminated or not [60];
how many work programme claimants are flagged as ‘vulnerable’;
how often the WPP safeguarding procedures are used. The WPP guidance refers to the safeguarding procedure as a ‘high level must do’[61] so it is surprising that statistics are not collected at the moment
how many sanction referrals from WPPs are cancelled due to lack of safeguarding. DWP have recently introduced checks into this [62] but do not collect stats on this process [63] [64]; and
whether vulnerable work programme claimants are getting sanctioned after having been through safeguarding or not and why.

We would submit that it is not possible to monitor the effects and outcomes of sanctions issued to vulnerable claimants in the absence of such DWP recording."

The Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland’s investigation into the benefits assessment and death of Ms DE [65] recommended that DWP audit adherence of their staff to vulnerability guidance.

Internal guidance

Safeguarding guidance is internal DWP guidance and is not published online or circulated to advice organisations. This means that welfare rights advisers and support workers are often unaware of the guidance. The only way to obtain the internal guidance is through making time consuming FOI requests.

The Employment Minister has indicated that the DWP does not plan to make ESA or Universal Credit (UC) safeguarding guidance publicly available [66].

Inconsistent safeguarding guidance

The strongest guidance applies to claimants who have failed to attend or participate in a mandatory interview or work related activity set by JCP. This is likely to be only a small proportion of the claimants for whom safeguarding is appropriate. This client group will be safeguarded after each occasion they fail to comply, to ensure that claimants with fluctuating mental health conditions are protected. If the DWP is unable to safeguard the claimant the case is referred to a manager and they have a moral obligation to notify a third party of a potential incident involving the vulnerable claimant before applying a sanction.

However, WPP clients who are mandated face to face and who later fail to comply do not have to be seen face to face before a decision can be made to sanction them. There is no requirement to notify third parties and no reference to a moral obligation to do so.

Failing to attend a WCA arguably causes greater complications for a claimant as it leads to termination of a claim rather than a sanction (hardship payments can be made during a sanction). Yet, safeguarding is not required every time a claimant fails to attend a WCA and the case does not have to be referred to a manager before stopping benefit. It is possible for benefit to be stopped without first having a conversation with a vulnerable claimant to gain good cause information. Using DWP Visiting in these instances has been the subject of a recommendation by a DWP peer review following a serious incident or death [67] [68] [69]. There is no requirement to notify third parties and no reference to a moral obligation to do so. Note that the minimum requirements were originally introduced in response to the death of a claimant whose benefit had been terminated rather than sanctioned.

Recording and sharing information between DWP and Work Programme Providers

Safeguarding relies on the various organisations involved in a claim identifying and being aware of the vulnerability of a claimant. There can be significant problems with this [70] [71], including with identifying and communicating vulnerability between DWP and WPPs and their sub-contractors.

The Independent Reviewer of the WCA and the Work and Pensions Select Committee have both recommended that information from the WCA process should be routinely shared with WPPs to enable them to identify vulnerability more effectively [72] [73]. When referring vulnerable claimants to the Work Programme the DWP are supposed conduct a ‘warm handover’ to ensure that their needs are fully set out, this does not appear to happen so that WPPs and their sub-contractors lack relevant information about claimants’ needs [74].

GWRS casework experience and discussions with local DWP staff have established that the e-referral of claimants cuts off all but the first few free text sentences of information about the client (including information about vulnerability). DWP changed their referral procedures to ensure that the word 'safeguard' now appears early in the action plan but this remains insufficient for WPPs to plan their support for clients. It is unclear whether this problem will be addressed in UC systems.

DWP and WPP guidance both state that staff should use formal processes to record and communicate details of claimant vulnerability when they identify it. Based on casework and conversations with a WPP sub-contractor GWRS feel that DWP and WPP staff are not consistently identifying vulnerability using these formal processes. This can mean that vulnerable claimants can be treated as vulnerable by one organisation but not by another. The DWP has introduced a new cross provision change of circumstances form [75] [76] but there does not appear to be any monitoring of the identification and communication of vulnerability by DWP and WPPs.

Some of the safeguarding guidance requires/allows the DWP and WPPs to notify third parties (such as social services) of potential risks to vulnerable claimants. However, GWRS have been told by JCP and DWP staff that although contact information about professionals involved with a particular client can be recorded in notes there is nowhere to record third party information unless it is for an appointee [77]. If the information is not immediately visible this means that busy DWP staff are likely to miss opportunities to contact third parties even when the information has been recorded on the system. It is also unclear whether this problem will be addressed in UC systems.

It seems that DWP legacy systems lack the basic functionality to ‘flag’ a claimant as vulnerable [78]. Informal conversations by GWRS with DWP staff suggest that this is also not possible in UC systems although we have been unable to confirm this.

Fit for work and vulnerable

There are no safeguarding processes which apply to JSA claimants or UC claimants who are deemed to be fit for work.

The independent review of JSA sanctions by Matthew Oakley highlighted that many JCP advisers identified a vulnerable group of JSA claimants who were more likely to be sanctioned due to not understanding their responsibilities, such as those with learning difficulties [79].

In response to the Oakley review there is now one reference in JSA guidance which states that “a sanction doubt should never be raised for a claimant who, due to their complex needs, cannot understand the requirements”[80]. However, checks on whether claimants understood the requirements do not appear to have been built into staff processes which, given pressures on JCP staff time, means that this reference may end up being overlooked [81]. This is a particular problem given concerns about difficulties for claimants with mental health problems in the WCA [82] [83] [84]which regularly lead to vulnerable claimants failing to qualify for ESA and needing to claim benefit as a jobseeker instead.

Escalation contacts and implicit consent

Assisting vulnerable clients to resolve problems is much easier when representatives are able to swiftly escalate problems and queries with DWP staff who feel empowered to address the problems raised [85].

DWP Working with Representatives guidance [86] sets out implicit consent procedures. Implicit consent enables representatives to call the DWP without having explicit signed consent or having their client present as long as the representative has been given verbal permission to do so, knows basic information about the client, and limits themselves to asking reasonable questions. DWP staff awareness of these procedures, however, is variable. There are also concerns that DWP staff appear not to be following implicit consent procedures on Universal Credit full service claims [87].

The DWP produces lists of escalation contacts [88] for circulation to welfare rights advisers. However, DWP staff themselves do not seem to have these contacts circulated to them. This can mean that advisers often have better contacts with DWP offices than some DWP staff. This means that DWP staff can lack the ability to quickly address problems.

Universal Credit DWP safeguarding guidance

GWRS are unable to say with certainty what safeguards are in UC as the DWP has been unwilling to release FOIs. GWRS have submitted further FOIs and are awaiting a response. The most recent documents GWRS have relating to UC safeguards date from April and August 2015.

Vulnerability and complex needs

Definitions of vulnerability in UC are based on the DWP Approach to Vulnerability guidance [89]. It appears that a definition of vulnerability based around those with mental ill health, learning difficulties, and conditions affecting cognition is no longer used. This means that DWP staff are expected to use their own discretion based on the information available to them. This may well be problematic given the number of times failure to identify vulnerability has been an issue raised during a DWP Peer Review [90].

The Approach to Vulnerability guidance introduces a new description of vulnerability as ‘an individual who is identified as having complex needs and/or requires additional support to enable them to access DWP benefits and use our services’. Complex needs are described as ‘difficult personal circumstances and/or life events that affect the ability of the individual to access DWP benefits and use our services’[91].

The guidance has stated that the DWP approach to vulnerability aims to move away from using the term ‘vulnerable customer’[92]. It does not define vulnerability by customer group in favour of a focus on life events and/or personal circumstances and states that claimants may move in and out of situations where they do/do not require support [93]. The guidance goes on to state that some individuals may not require support even though they are experiencing difficult life events and/or complex personal circumstances, health issues or disability [94].

The guidance lists some life events and personal circumstances [95] including adoption, leaving the armed forces, bereavement, debt/indebtedness, divorce, domestic violence and abuse, addiction, retirement, age – older person, lone parent, suicide and/or self-harm declaration, MAPPA claimants (Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements).

Failure to attend or participate in a Work Related Interview or Work Related Activity

The available guidance on this issue may be out of date or since removed [96]. The guidance states that if a claimant does not attend or fails to take part in an appointment then the DWP agent must consider whether a safeguarding visit is appropriate. It states that if there is evidence that the claimant has complex needs and/or requires additional support a referral to the DWP visiting service for that claimant will be appropriate. The Visiting Officer will collect evidence of good reasons why they didn’t meet their requirements. Once the home visit has taken place the need for a further appointment will be decided. The sanction process continues where the visiting officer does not identify complex needs, the claimant is not at home, or the claimant refuses to co-operate.

Failure to attend an appointment

The available guidance on this issue may be out of date or since removed [97]. If a claimant with complex needs has one or more failures to attend any appointment type immediately preceding the present failed appointment the work coach must raise a doubt because the claimant has already been made aware of the consequences of this. The staff member will then attempt to contact the claimant by telephone to explain the consequences of failing to attend and to ask the claimant for their reasons for failing to attend. If contact with the claimant with complex needs is unsuccessful the staff member will make a referral to a visiting officer.

Universal Credit Work Programme Provider safeguarding guidance

This section on WPP guidance is up to date as the guidance is made publicly available online.

Defining vulnerability for Universal Credit work programme claimants

The Universal Credit WPP guidance states that the work programme definition of ‘vulnerable’ should only be used for UC claimants in Payment Groups 5, 6a, 6b and 7 (this seems to be almost equivalent to ESA WRAG claimants although appearing to omit payment group 6 – parent with a child aged 3 or 4, and with limited capability for work due to a medical condition with a 3 or 6 month prognosis)[98], who are in the work preparation regime, and have a WCA prognosis [99]. Vulnerable UC claimants meeting those criteria are those who have mental health conditions, learning disabilities, or conditions affecting communication/cognition [100].

Vulnerable Universal Credit claimant fails to comply with an activity they have been mandated to undertake by a Work Programme Provider

Potential consequences for the vulnerable claimant if not safeguarded

A sanction could be applied if the claimant does not or cannot show good cause.

The safeguarding process

Safeguarding is referred to in guidance as a 'high level must do'[101]. Before raising a compliance doubt (which could lead to a sanction) for a vulnerable claimant, a WPP must ensure that the claimant understood the requirement placed on them and the possible consequences of not complying [102]. The WPP must use information from the DWP referral, DWP updates, and their own information to determine whether a claimant is vulnerable [103]. At a minimum the WPP must have a face to face discussion with the claimant for each mandated activity, and this must be done by home visit if the WPP is unable to have a face to face discussion any other way [104], regardless of whether or not the claimant was mandated during a face to face interview [105].

The WPP must raise a compliance doubt regardless of whether or not they have met with the claimant. The WPP must also raise a compliance doubt regardless of whether they believe the claimant did or did not understand the requirements and the possible consequences of not complying. The compliance doubt must contain details of all attempted safeguarding actions and their outcomes so that the DWP can consider this when deciding whether to apply a sanction [106].

The guidance states that if the claimant has given the WPP written consent to talk to a third party representative then the WPP is free to do so [107].

The Royal Greenwich approach to safeguarding

GWRS are concerned about changes to DWP safeguards and the possibility of the DWP moving away from the use of the current safeguarding approach. GWRS are working with vulnerable residents, local advice and support services, Royal Greenwich Housing Benefit and Council Tax Support Service, and local healthcare providers to establish a local safeguarding process aimed at supporting people with mental health problems, learning difficulties, and conditions affecting cognition. The process aims to supplement DWP safeguards.

Vulnerable Greenwich residents are provided with a form to notify RBG and JCP of their ill health or disability and to provide contact details for a health professional and a support worker involved with them. This aims to give the DWP the means to access information about a claimant’s vulnerabilities and then, if benefit is stopped, to notify someone who can support the resident to address the problem. In addition to this the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Support Service will identify vulnerable residents’ benefit claims and notify the health professional and support worker if benefit is terminated or sanctioned.

Conclusion

The issue of safeguards for vulnerable claimants is of key importance. When safeguards fail, or are not used, the consequences can be stark and potentially tragic. GWRS hopes that this briefing paper will provide a useful summary of their work on this area to date, and encourage further discussion and action to ensure that vulnerable claimants are safeguarded within the benefit system.

GWRS believe that the DWP should strengthen safeguards for vulnerable ESA and UC claimants and that, in addition, Local Authorities could build local benefit safeguarding arrangements through joint working with claimants, local advice agencies, and the DWP.

[13] For many claimants (e.g. those getting the assessment rate of ESA while awaiting a WCA or those with an occupational pension or an earnings replacement benefit such as Carer’s Allowance) this could reduce their payments of ESA to the 10p minimum payment.

[14] Employment and Support Allowance is the only benefit with an open ended and indefinite sanction period. All Jobseeker’s Allowance sanctions are for fixed periods.

[99] Note that vulnerable ESA claimants without a WCA prognosis (i.e. awaiting a WCA prognosis) were included in the group of claimants who could be safeguarded