This submission contains some examples of where sanctions have been unfairly applied and do not represent value for money. It consists of some brief cases and a longer casestudy. Please see below:
Support was given to help him submit a mandatory reconsideration but this was refused.
The case was heard by a tribunal and he was awarded ESA from the date that it had originally stopped.
Four weeks later, he received another letter advising that he had to attend a medical.
Once again the tenant contacted the Job Centre to confirm that he was unable to attend due to the same reasons as previously advised and explained that he had won his case etc.
ESA was stopped again and the cycle will continue.
He returned 10 minutes later, sat and waited for 30 minutes before asking an officer how long he would need to wait before his appointment. He was told that he was late for his appointment, despite the fact that he was sat there and was advised that he would be sanctioned.
This tenant has been supported to submit a mandatory reconsideration.
A more detailed casestudy is given below:
The tenant was previously on ESA. His claim was re-assessed and subsequently denied at the beginning of the year. Unsure of the benefit system he relied on DWP paying him or guiding him to the correct benefit he was entitled to. This led to him having a nil income from January to April 2016, while DWP decided which benefit he could claim. Both departments kept referring him to the other. He received JSA in April while going through a mandatory reconsideration. When the decision that he was fit for work was upheld, he was required to apply for Universal Credit in May. By this time he was in a financial crisis. He had high rent arrears, council tax arrears, no money himself and had exhausted the financial support from family and friends.
His physical health issues still remained and he was on the waiting list for two hernia operations. His mental health deteriorated and he suffered depression and anxiety related to his physical health and circumstances. By the time his first payment was received, he was at absolute crisis point with his rent arrears and council tax debt. He received letters regarding court action for both debts; he was not in a financial position to clear either debt.
At this point correspondence and appointments started to come through from the UC service centre. The tenant attended all of the initial appointments, met his work coach, produced all his documentation and made them aware of his medical condition, to which they were sympathetic. Over two months, the tenant missed two appointments with his work coach – although he is adamant that he called at the job centre (not at the correct time) to advise that he had issues with his benefits and rent that he needed to rectify urgently.
The first time that the tenant was aware he had been sanctioned, was when he received less money. He was only paid for his housing element. He did not realise this and used it for his daily living expenses, compounding the issue with rent arrears.
When contacting the service centre he was advised that he was sanctioned as he missed two appointments; one was to visit Citizens Advice Bureau; the other was to visit the local authority regarding a back date of housing benefit. On both occasions the DWP were contacted.
On the second occasion he had called at Job Centre Plus ( not at the correct time) to advise he would not be able to make the appointment due to a meeting with housing benefit. He was told to contact the service centre, but was unable to get through that day. Where he lives has very limited network coverage which means he needs to use a public phone. His condition can limit his ability to do this and it was four days (covers a weekend) before he was able to speak to the service centre.
The only solution they could give was to make an appointment with the work coach to apply for a hardship payment.
The tenant was due to have his operation within three weeks (he had been waiting approximately two and a half years) but was advised by his doctor, that unless the issues with his benefit were resolved, his operation would need to be postponed, as it was a health issues for him to return home with no money, no heating etc.
The sanction was applied for a two month period. The tenant was advised that if he would need another hardship payment for the following month, he would be required to make another appointment to see the work coach, even though this would be three days after his operation. All these details were given to the work coach, who was sympathetic but advised there was nothing else they could do other than follow the process.
In all of this, the tenant was engaging with the DWP and continues to do so. In this case, the sanctions did not add any value or achieve their aims and objectives. They caused serious financial, physical and mental distress, which could have been avoidable with a common sense approach. Had the tenant not had external support the outcome could have been more serious.
Our observations and submission
None of the above cases represent value for money, or meet the aims and objectives that benefit sanctions were originally intended to achieve.
In all of the cases, the people were engaging with Job Centre Plus and the sanctions did not initiate a positive change in behaviour. If anything, applying the sanctions put barriers in place and prevented the people concerned staying engaged and committed to finding work.
The sanctions procedure is too bureaucratic and common sense does not prevail. In all of these cases sanctions could have been avoided. The submission of mandatory reconsiderations and appeals, in cases where sanctions are not appropriate, does not represent value for money when considering the DWP administration that goes in to managing these. Additional costs to the DWP are subsequently incurred with the administration of hardship payments, as most people who are subject to sanctions have no other means of accessing financial support.
The detailed casestudy demonstrates the adverse effect sanctions have on people, raising stress and anxiety levels. Putting someone in a position where they may be potentially homeless due to extreme financial difficulties is not conducive to them finding employment; their priority will be keeping a roof over their head.
It also shows that those with mental health conditions suffer the consequence of sanctions more than others. The anxiety caused by the threat of the regime and mis-communication from Job Centre Plus is having a far from positive impact.
Job Centre Plus does not give enough advice or warning of a sanction, or the implications if the regime is not adhered to.
On a positive note, an older man had his ESA sanctioned because he failed to attend a medical. A housing support worker called DWP, explained that he was suffering with mental health issues and that he was receiving support because of this. The sanction was lifted and his benefit was reinstated.
To conclude, we agree that sanctions have their place in the benefit system, however, they need be administered appropriately. DWP should be avoiding outcomes that do not represent value for money on the public purse and have adverse impacts on the wellbeing of individuals and families.
The tier 1 and tier 2 criteria within Universal Credit, recognises that some people are not able to manage their money, and in these circumstances, a managed payment is deemed to be appropriate. A similar triage would be a worthwhile addition to the decision making process around benefit sanctions.
Allowing information from professional people e.g. support workers, housing professionals, to be fed into the process, will avoid unnecessary administration costs, will offer value for money, will meet the aims and objectives of the sanction system and as importantly, will allow people to meet their claimant commitment whilst maintaining a relationship with their work coach.
Consideration should be given to extending Trusted Partner Status (TPS), to allow organisations like registered social landlords to ‘support the DWP’ to deliver the fair and ethical benefits system everyone wants. The TPS trials (and the direct payment demonstration projects before them) have proven that a partnership approach between social landlords and the DWP works to everyone’s advantage. This means that well- informed decisions about benefit payment arrangements and tenant/customer support needs are made.
This response is submitted on behalf of the Registered Social Landlord members of the Gwent Welfare Reform Partnership who are United Welsh, Bron Afon Housing Association, Charter Housing, Linc-Cymru, Melin Homes, Monmouthshire Housing Association, Newport City Homes, and Tai Calon. These eight housing associations provide homes and services to over 48,500 households in South East Wales.
Together our eight organisations jointly fund a specialist post of Project Manager to co-ordinate our work on welfare reform related issues, disseminate our collective knowledge and champion best practice.
The Partnership thinks that they are well placed as housing professionals to provide a response to the consultation. All of the organisations within the Partnership offer an element of benefit advice and support, and there is extensive knowledge and experience among the Partners of sanction administration.