Written evidence from 1625 Independent People

1625 Independent People (1625ip) support young people aged 16 - 25 who are at risk of becoming homeless or are already homeless.

1625ip has been delivering youth services for over 33yrs. Our experience in service delivery is broad and varied from signposting and advice to intensive one-to-one support lasting a number of years. We either house and support someone, or support them in their own property. We have received national recognition as a charity for best practice and received local and national awards for youth involvement.

Any young person who is having issues or not coping with their living arrangements is at risk of becoming homeless. It means they don't have any options open to them if those arrangements don't work out. There are lots of reasons things might be going wrong - the most common is some sort of family breakdown. It can also be because they can't cope living alone and they don't have any trusted adults to turn to. They may not have the skills to live alone, they've never lived alone before. There might be behaviour issues often caused by things that happened to them in the past. They might be international refugees, running away from domestic abuse or perhaps leaving custody and living on their own for the first time. Young people in this age group have very specific needs. It's a time of transitions - child to adult, dependent to living alone, for some becoming parents, others leaving juvenile detention and moving to adult prison.

As a consequence we work with some of the most vulnerable young people in our community and area and it is a cause of deep concern the pattern we are seeing with sanctioning of YP on benefits. We have seen a dramatic increase in the use of sanctioning - we currently estimate over 30% of our service users will experience sanctions in a year (last year we worked with 2498 young people).

We are concerned that a broader agenda to save money is being applied in a way that further disadvantages some of the most vulnerable young people, rather than seeks to motivate them in order to move forward positively. Our experience is that sanctions are applied with context to the young person's situation, regardless of the impact, within trying to engage with other key support networks and in a way where there is no clear responsibility and accountability for the decision and actions taken, when something is challenged or mistakes are made.

We demonstrate this through 3 case studies;

K's case study

K was living in our supported dispersed housing service. She had significant mental health challenges, and  was frequently involved with the police and emergency services as a result of her wellbeing. the level of anxiety that K experiences is such that it would prevent her from attending  a ESA appointment with an employment advisor without significant support. Despite this she failed to attend one appointment and was immediately sanctioned for this. There was no attempt by the DWP to take account of the additional vulnerability or that the young person was not able at this point to attend unsupported. They did not contact us, nor take account that the young person was in supported accommodation.

N's case study

N was a resident in one of  our high support hostels. N was sanctioned and during this time, N received approximately £10 ESA per fortnight. This meant he was unable to buy essentials such as food and toiletries and would go for periods of time without eating, having to rely on food donations to the hostel. This impacted on his mental health and wellbeing as he was unable to eat properly. Having such a low income exacerbated N’s ongoing mental health problems; his mood became lower and his anxiety worsened as he had the added pressure of no money This in turn affected his motivation and enthusiasm for undertaking positive actions to gain work experience in a charity shop. Prior to the sanction N had been making positive progress in relation to this.

B's case study;

“Met with B at the start of April 2016. K had been sanctioned by Universal Credit (UC) from August 2015 for failing to attend a Job Centre appointment. States she was ill, but not able to prove this to the Job Centre. States her sanction will last until June 2016. K had all her UC allowance sanctioned until 29/03/16 where she started to receive £13.97 monthly.

B suffers with depression and has history of self-harm. B states her friend helped her contact the Job Centre to get some financial help and request hardship payments. States her friends have been helping her with food and keeping her electric topped up. UC housing element paid direct to Landlord so arrears static, but in N.Somerset, all residents need to pay at 20% of their Council Tax, so council tax and water bills mounting up.

Mid April 2016, B showed me a letter form UC which shows the calculation for the back-dated payment because B had over-served her UC sanction and shows that from end of the month normal UC standard allowance £251.77 p/m will resume.

When B was supposed to receive her full UC standard allowance end of April 2016, only £180.65 paid. B showed me a letter from UC outlining deductions £37.77 DWP Overpayment and £33.55 Short-term advance. B states she does not know what the overpayment is for.

Contacted UC, we were informed the DWP overpayment relates to a HB overpayment of £900. We requested rent statement from Landlord. Rent statement shows Landlord had made two separate refunds of overpaid HB, so B therefore does not owe DWP overpayments. T/C to UC to inform them to investigate.

From May 2016 it has been constant telephone calls to UC to find out when the deductions for HB Overpayment will be stopped and when B will be refunded. All evidence sent to them.

UC reasons for ongoing error were; "no notes left on their system to explore the overpayment", "need to speak to a different department", "will be put on urgent action", "will call you back in 24 hours".

May 2016. B states CAB advisor feels B had been unfairly sanctioned by the Job Centre/UC. CAB supports B to challenge Job Centre and UC. This went to tribunal. End of August 2016, K receives a text message from DWP to inform her they will be making a payment to her today of £1239.11 following tribunal for the unfair sanction by UC. B was feeling emotionally overwhelmed and started making a plan for her spending to cover things she has not been able to since her sanction from August 2015.

Although B did receive a back-dated payment from UC for unfair sanction - it must be noted that their was no compensation or apology for stress and hardship caused - To date, end of November 2016, the HB overpayment is still being deducted at £37.77p/m.”

The inquiry asks whether the "Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is achieving value for money from its administration of benefit sanctions... how benefit sanctions fit with the intended aims and outcomes of DWP's wider working age employment policy, ... and whether use of sanctions is leading to the intended outcomes for claimants".

Our understanding is that the applications of sanctions is intended to motivate people to comply with benefit requirements and work related activity.

Young People are already disproportionately disadvantaged in terms of the income levels they receive on benefits and this leaves no ability to save or have any back up. It is difficult to understand how removing someone's ability to eat for a prolonged period of time will help them to move forward into employment. However even more starkly, it is very hard to understand how this approach can achieve value for money unless it is considered within a silo.

In each of the examples we gave, this meant there was additional demand placed on other services in order to ensure these young people's wellbeing. These are young people who do not have support networks they are often estranged from their families and so there is no one to step in to help them pick up the pieces.

As an organisation we are passionate about enabling young people to get into employment as we know that evidence shows that on average their second job will be the one that really lifts them our of homelessness.

Sadly at the moment, it feels that the DWP is undermining this pathway rather than supporting it.  We have been informed that there is a way to flag cases as vulnerable but we have never been told how to do this and do not believe that this system is used locally.

We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this in more detail with the select committee.

6 November 2016