Written evidence from Geoff Fimister (UCR0002)
Prepared originally for the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation’s Insight and Benefit journals
1.2 It currently “stands alone”, in that I have not yet sought to cross-reference it to other studies, national and local, that have been or are being undertaken as UC rolls out. However, emerging themes and concerns seem to be similar, wherever UC is examined and debated[1].
1.3 My appeal for evidence was launched in November 2016, in the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation’s Insight journal[2] (although responsibility for the contents is my own and the recommendations are those of the contributors). It was subsequently extended via various advice workers’ and other networks. The appeal was aimed primarily at welfare rights advisers, or those in similar roles, and local authority benefit administrators.
1.4 Three recommendations were invited from each entrant, in order of importance. 3 points were awarded for the first, 2 for the second and 1 for the third.
1.5 It quickly became apparent that many entrants were going to make more than three recommendations. So as not to waste them, they were allocated points as follows:
- Where a first choice was really two proposals, I separated them and allowed 3 points for each.
- Likewise, where a second choice was really two proposals, I separated them and allowed 2 points for each.
- Where third, fourth, fifth etc. proposals were made, they were awarded 1 point each.
1.6 In some cases, only one recommendation was made (3 points). In one case, the same recommendation was made repeatedly, for emphasis (nice try, but 3 points).
1.7 Proposals with strong similarities were amalgamated.
1.8 The current version of this report is based on returns from 36 respondents. In the event, the great majority have been advisers (or policy staff of agencies that provide advice):
Advisers 31 [including for social landlords]
Administrators 3
Employment support sector 1
Trade unions 1
Total 36
[See Appendix for a list of respondents].
1.9 This preponderance of advisers is perhaps not surprising, as it is the advice functions of local authorities and other social landlords (as well as voluntary sector advice agencies) rather than local councils’ benefits administration, which will experience the main demand for help. However, it may be that those local benefit practitioners dealing with Discretionary Housing Payments will increasingly be involved as UC rolls out.
1.10 The geographical spread has been as follows:
London Boroughs 8
Other South East 6
East Midlands 1
North East 2
North West 1
South West 3
Yorkshire 2
Scotland 2
Wales 2
National HQ 7
Not indicated 2
This is the Top 10 chart as it currently stands:
1. (31 points). The gap without an income at the beginning of a claim should be reduced or closed.
[Various suggestions: abolish waiting days; waiting days should not apply to people who have housing costs; or are homeless or threatened with homelessness; existing exemptions should be properly identified and applied; UC should be paid in advance, rather than in arrears; the gap should be shortened in line with the “legacy benefits”].
“Waiting days at the start of a claim should be abolished. At the very least an exemption should be introduced so that people who are homeless do not have to serve waiting days”. (Alice Ashworth).
“Waiting periods should be removed”. (Meg Van Rooyen).
[I have not included recommendations relating to short-term advances here – they are not generally seen as a solution by those who advocate reducing the gap]:
“A benefit advance just spreads the limited income out over a longer period, which granted is better than nothing, but little over longer still creates unnecessary hardship”. (Tina Barclay).
“Although the advance is available, this is just putting claimants into debt immediately, which can never result in anything but financial hardship”. (Charlotte Johnson).
2. (16 points). Assessment periods should correspond to claimants’ actual pattern of income receipt – and there should be an option to be paid at different intervals than monthly (these two points were sometimes made separately and sometimes combined).
3. (15 points). Claimant to have the option for the rental element to be paid direct to landlord.
4. (14 points). UC for self-employed people should be reviewed, so as to reflect more realistically the realities of self-employment.
“Self-employment can be a particularly valuable route out of unemployment for some jobseekers such as those with fluctuating health conditions or a criminal record. The Employment Related Services Association (ERSA) estimates that the Work Programme, the largest government programme supporting individuals further from the labour market, has achieved about 10% of its sustained job outcomes via self-employment. As such, it is vital that UC is able to support people wishing to pursue self-employment effectively, while ensuring value for money from the [Department for Work and Pensions] (DWP)’s side”. (Rick Wright).
“As we run Business Debtline, I would suggest changing the way that UC works for the self-employed. The assumed amount of earnings after 12 months of self-employment of 35 hours x the minimum wage is unfair. We think it should be based around actual earnings, or at the very least, the time period to start a new business should be extended beyond 12 months”. (Meg Van Rooyen).
“Minimum income floor is too blunt and penalises the self-employed startups after 12 months. Five years is a reasonable time before it is implemented. It should be implemented by phasing in over the sixth year so that it rises gradually to living wage”. (Paul Connearn).
“Abolish the minimum income floor for the self-employed, which is becoming more unattainable with each increase in the [statutory minimum wage]. It actively discourages people from taking-up self-employment”. (Gary Vaux).
5. (12 points). Sanctions should be reformed to become less counter-productively punitive – for example, they should only be imposed where there is a clear breach of the rules and where lateness to meetings is concerned, only where there is a clear pattern of repeated failure.
“We see too many cases of people with limited broadband access and very limited but expensive public transport to the nearest small town, with almost no job opportunities anyway, being sanctioned for not doing enough websurfing and personal cold-calling”. (Gary Vaux).
“Instead of sanctions, work with people to get them into jobs that are sustainable”. (Elizabeth O’Kane).
Joint 6. (10 points). Award notices should be clear, with an intelligible breakdown.
“Award notifications in [claimants’ UC] journals are abysmal and rarely have any intelligible breakdown – so that would be an improvement – if awards can be documented in a way that is clear and sets out what and how exactly the award is made up, so the client can then dispute if they believe it is wrong”. (Cathy Cunningham-Elliott).
“UC awards (particularly housing elements) often seem to be incorrect, but as claimants are not given a breakdown of how the element has been worked out it is very difficult to identify the mistake. If award notices were to include breakdowns this would help claimants ensure they receive their full entitlement”. (Welfare rights adviser, London borough).
Joint 6. (10 points). There should be a more supportive approach to help with owner-occupier housing costs.
[Various suggestions: earned income should not debar the claimant from help; provide support earlier; the 9-month waiting period should not have to be repeated].
“It seems to us to be a complete disincentive to work, in contrast to the principles stated when UC was set up, that if the client is receiving UC housing costs element for mortgage, secured loan etc. and then gets earned income, housing costs element payments towards the mortgage stop [and then] a further 9 month waiting period [to re-qualify]. This seems to be any earned income in any week, however small. We envisage people being stuck between the requirements of Jobcentre Plus to seek work and the threat of losing housing costs”. (Meg Van Rooyen).
“Abolish the 'no earned income' rule for people claiming help with mortgage interest – or at least, stop tax rebates being counted as earned income and therefore disqualifying people anyway, even if not working. There could be a tapered or banded income rule if DWP don’t want to pay mortgage interest to people who are working full-time, but again, the current rule discourages even micro-jobs”. (Gary Vaux).
“There is an issue around people on UC in the mortgage interest waiting period. They get a tax rebate part way through the waiting period – as they have given up work – now the tax rebate counts as earnings so they then lose potential for any mortgage interest payments in UC and have to start the waiting period all over again. The solution is to ignore the rebate as earnings. Or provide for these situations so that when the claimant receives a tax repayment then they do not need to start the waiting period over again. Or treat the tax rebate as savings”. (Cathy Cunningham-Elliott).
Joint 8. (9 points). Reverse the cuts to work allowances.
“Reinstate work allowances to pre-April 2016 levels. This will help make work pay, which was meant to be a main aim of UC”. (Cordelia Deady).
Joint 8. (9 points). Social landlords should be notified of a new claim and at the end of a claim.
“The DWP should contact registered social landlords after the initial UC claim has been made. The DWP can obtain the relevant information relating to the tenancy from the landlord to ensure the housing costs are processed with the first payment”. (Charlotte Johnson).
“To ensure appropriate rent details have been given to the DWP and that support requirements are put in place early – if vulnerabilities are identified then an alternative payment arrangement can be put in place in a timely manner to safeguard the tenancy. We feel if we get this right, we have a chance of being able to risk-assess our claimants and put appropriate support mechanisms in place where required.
“We also have experiences whereby claims have been closed in error – so for us to have [end of claim] information would enable us to check if a case was actually closed [appropriately]”. (David Jones).
Joint 8. (9 points). There should be improved and more extensive training and guidance for UC staff in the identification and support of vulnerable claimants; and improved procedures, including better liaison with outside organisations.
[Various suggestions, including: a clear definition of both temporary and permanent vulnerability; improved skills to enable staff to identify, collect, record and understand vulnerability information; the use of case studies; improved information-sharing between benefits; improved and extended working with trusted third party organisations; effective safeguarding procedures; clarity on when disability and health conditions require reasonable adjustments; and improved awareness of the complex issues associated with mental health problems].
“There isn’t a typical ‘vulnerable’ customer, and often people who others see as vulnerable may not consider themselves in that way. However, factors like age, physical or mental health, caring responsibilities and life changing events such as redundancy, relationship breakdown or bereavement could mean someone is put in a vulnerable position. Sometimes it may be a temporary situation, but they could need extra support as a result.
“Some customers are however permanently vulnerable because they have a permanent mental or physical disability, or a learning disability (such as Down’s syndrome) or difficulty (such as Dyslexia). Their right to access services is protected by law and we have concerns that current DWP practice within UC is not taking account of the need to make reasonable adjustments.
“Other customers are temporarily vulnerable due to illness or a short term crisis or difficulty. They are not protected by law, but DWP have a duty to adapt customer service to make things easier for them and to work with agencies to protect the welfare of vulnerable adults and children and we are concerned that this is not happening and the most vulnerable claimants are been left with no or insufficient income placing their welfare at risk”. (Julia Harris).
___________________
Others (8 points):
(8 points). The treatment of carers within UC should be reviewed and substantially improved, both in terms of benefit rates and the way conditionality works.
“Develop a truly claimant-focused conditionality regime, trusting claimants to know what they need to do to find work which fits around caring responsibilities and their own needs. In particular, scrap the disastrous idea that only one parent in a couple is the 'responsible carer' for the purposes of conditionality. Save money in work coach time by not interfering in the many cases where families have a good idea about the work patterns they need and can find - give them quality advice on help with childcare costs instead. (Will Hadwen).
___________________
Others (7 points):
(7 points). The equivalent of the Severe Disability Premium should be established in UC.
(7 points). Direct deductions from UC should be reviewed to eliminate excessively large individual or combined deductions for various purposes.
“Deductions for rent arrears [are] a standard amount that takes no account of the claimants’ ability to pay”. (Rachel Lovell).
“It is possible to deduct incredible percentages of UC for rent, magistrates’ court fines, benefit overpayments up to 40% and so on”. (Meg Van Rooyen).
“The deductions from UC for debts need to be capped at a much lower level. 40% of magistrates’ court fines and 20% for rent arrears is putting people into financial hardship. DWP staff should also have the power to reduce deductions to a set minimum when a third party, for example a debt adviser, can demonstrate financial hardship”. (Charlotte Johnson).
___________________
Others (6 points):
(6 points). For new claims for UC, any money paid by an employer after the person ceases to be employed should be treated as having been paid on the last day of employment – and where this would result in no entitlement, a claim should be treated as an advance claim to commence thereafter.
“At present working out when someone should make a claim for UC is much more complex than for legacy benefits. Getting the advice wrong could cost the client hundreds of pounds…. I think the sheer complexity of when to make a claim makes this proposal a very strong contender. DWP ought to be embarrassed considering their boast about the simplicity of UC”. (Sue Royston).
(6 points). There should be a choice of means of making and maintaining claims and reporting changes of circumstances – online should not be the only option.
“Make claiming and reporting changes accessible to all - those without internet access, disabled people, those in rural areas - allow claimants the option to contact the DWP in the way that works for them”. (Will Hadwen).
(6 points). Local authorities should administer the housing element of UC. They could use the staff who administer Council Tax Support schemes to assess both together and thus save costs.
(6 points). Local sources of advice and support should be reviewed and strengthened.
“There seems to be a lack of customer support locally, as Jobcentres have a restricted role and in most cases only advise on the work commitment and getting customers back in work”. (David Jones).
“Work coaches should have open and honest conversations with claimants around money and budgeting. The low number of referrals for personal budgeting support suggests they may not be doing this”. (Charlotte Johnson).
“It would be good if some of the money I understand DWP is passing on to local authorities to support the implementation of UC could find its way to the advice agencies that are having to manage huge increases in demand for support”. (Judith Sharples).
“Universal Support should be expanded to include support to address housing need. This should be delivered through a new joint model of working between Jobcentre Plus work coaches, the UC service centre and local authority homelessness services, to ensure that UC claimants who are homeless or at risk of homelessness are identified and get the help they need”. (Alice Ashworth).
Others (5 points):
(5 points). UC is too problematic: cancel it and reverse the roll-out.
(5 points). There should be a telephone contact number that an adviser can access.
“We have lost the valuable local link with the DWP that resolved many issues with just a phone call”. (Stuart Reid).
(5 points). Local authority staff should be able to help people to claim UC, plus providing identity and landlord verification, medical evidence etc. through checking and scanning documents and handling change of circumstances updates.
(5 points). The claimant should be given written advice in advance that a sanction is being considered, a date by which it will be imposed and an opportunity to dispute the decision before it is put into action.
(5 points). Exempt all emergency and temporary accommodation from UC.
“Residents claiming UC must have a rental liability on the fifth week of their claim. Due to the transient nature of some customer groups, residents may have been moved to more suitable accommodation before the fifth week. This is most likely to affect our residents in need of supported housing who may be placed in temporary accommodation until supported housing is available. As supported housing is exempt from UC, the five weeks’ housing costs in temporary accommodation is then lost”. (Julia Harris).
(5 points). All claimants in temporary accommodation should be offered budgeting support.
Others (4 points):
(4 points). There should be an electronic link between UC and Council Tax Support claims, to promote take-up of the latter.
(4 points). The UC taper should be reduced.
Others (3 points):
(3 points). There are too many cases of basic administrative failure – scheme rules not being understood or properly administered. There should be higher administrative standards and a greater emphasis on staff training.
(3 points). There should be a freephone number for communication with the DWP.
“With the centralisation of service centres, claimants have to contact DWP on costly phone line to discuss many aspects of their claim. Some experiences have shown that claimants who have queries around non-payment are unable to telephone due to the cost”. (David Jones).
“It can be very expensive to ring the helpline with long waits and sometimes getting cut off. Clients are often ringing the helpline because something has gone wrong with their payment so they have no money and need to borrow to put money on their phone”. (Sue Royston).
(3 points) There should be a link between UC and the local authority to notify the LA when a claimant is to be impacted by the benefit cap.
“Once the customer is in receipt of UC, there is no mechanism to notify the council, removing the ability to proactively identify this customer group”. (Julia Harris).
(3 points). The “bedroom tax” rules should be amended to provide for accommodation for visiting children in cases of relationship breakdown.
(3 points). There should be effective fast-tracking arrangements (for example, in cases of terminal illness).
“Currently the system has no way of acknowledging the need for a claim to be expedited. [For example] DS1500s [indicating terminal illness] can’t be uploaded and there is no flagging these cases – therefore the clients are waiting considerably longer than they ought for their payments”. (Cathy Cunningham-Elliott).
(3 points). Short-term advances should be available on request and more clearly publicised, including information being placed on www.gov.uk
(3 points). There should be clear rules, easily understood by staff and claimants, regarding the dividing line between UC and the “legacy benefits” – claimants should not be left stranded without money on the border.
“Despite the best efforts of our welfare officer and the staff we have dealt with at DWP and the local Jobcentre Plus office, this customer has been left without any income…. and is still awaiting her first payment of UC, a period of more than 10 weeks once the waiting days have been served”. (Ed Bowen).
(3 points). There should be clear instructions where UC is being claimed as a couple.
Others (2 points):
(2 points). A high priority should be given to getting the first payment right and paid on time.
“Our experiences to date show that if there are issues with payments it’s normally around their first payment – reasons include where rent details have not been verified in time; the UC Centre have forgotten to push a button and payment has not been released (some payments seem to be released manually); and there have also been issues with real time information where HMRC have posted incorrect earnings, resulting our customers being underpaid”. (David Jones).
(2 points). The six-month time limit for repayment of advance payments should be extended to 12 months at least.
“The six-month limit means claimants miss a large chunk of their payments for the first six months, which leads to financial hardship”. (Charlotte Johnson).
(2 points) There should be provision to lodge Mandatory Reconsideration requests via the claimant’s online account.
(2 points) All communications sent to claimants should be available to download from the online account.
(2 points). Personal allowances and other elements should be set at more realistic levels.
“The current rates reduce support for young couples, young lone parents, many disabled people and many disabled children relative to the [legacy benefits]”. (Cordelia Deady).
(2 points). The Limited Capability for Work element should be restored.
“Recognise long term sickness costs more and reinstate the LCW component”. (Elizabeth O’Kane).
(2 points). Council Tax Support should become part of UC.
(2 points). Make it easier for advocates to represent claimants by accepting implicit consent rather than expecting the claimant to manage the claim without support.
(2 points). The two-child limit should end.
(2 points). Transitional protection should be improved and extended.
“Consider transitional protection for anyone moving from legacy benefits to UC via a change of circumstances, say if there's been a legacy benefit claim within the last 52 weeks. Otherwise, it's just going to be misery. This will still save them money long-term. Preference would be for transitional protection to be the legacy benefits they would have got in their current circumstances if those benefits could still be claimed”. (Will Hadwen).
____________________
Others (1 point):
(1 point). Work Allowances should be additive, to enable disabled parents to get some financial support with the extra costs they face in work.
(1 point). Any wages paid by an employer earlier than the “usual payday” (for example, paid early for Christmas) should be treated as having been paid on the “usual payday”.
(1 point). UC claimants should be given free computer access and equipment and be offered free ICT training courses.
(1 point). Give claimants a virtual “UC account” from which they can set payments to be made to landlords, utility providers, their own bank account etc. at whatever interval works best for them.
(1 point). There should be a landlord portal linked to the claimant’s online account.
(1 point). The online journal should be re-designed so as to separate out different types of information.
(1 point). The online account should be re-designed so as to provide clear and up-to-date information as to deductions being made, including purposes and outstanding amounts.
(1 point). There should be a system for job coaches and other relevant personnel to check if claimants are logging onto their online accounts, so that important messages are not missed.
(1 point). Claimants should be able to submit the online application and add additional information at a later date.
(1 point). DWP should reduce the waiting time between submitting the online application and being invited to appointments necessary to progress the claim.
(1 point). Claimant commitments should explicitly state whether the claimant, when asked, declared that they were disabled or had a long-term health condition or had caring responsibilities. If they answered “yes” to any of the above then there needs to be an account within the claimant commitment of any necessary “reasonable adjustments” or how caring responsibilities have been taken into account. If the adviser disagrees with the claimant about what adjustments are required then the claimant must be given the opportunity to seek evidence.
(1 point). Clear guidance should be provided to UC staff on the transition from Employment and Support Allowance to UC.
“The transition from ESA to UC does not need a new Work Capability Assessment – the outcome of the previous one should just transfer across. This doesn’t happen in practice. There is a need for clear guidance to UC staff”. (Gary Vaux).
(1 point). The practice of wrongly applying UC waiting days to existing HB claimants should cease.
(1 point). Hardship payments should not be repayable.
(1 point). The availability of hardship payments should be properly publicised.
“Many clients are not being told that they may be eligible for hardship payments and are being sent from one agency to another”. (Stuart Reid).
(1 point). Short-term advances should not be repayable.
(1 point). Direct payments to third parties should not cease unless the claimant agrees.
(1 point). DWP should introduce an equivalent process to the “Trusted Partner” status for Help to Rent schemes (which support vulnerable tenants into private rented accommodation) and local authority homelessness teams, to make decisions about direct payments for people being supported into the private rented sector.
(1 point). DWP should better publicise Alternative Payment Arrangements to private landlords.
(1 point) Private landlords, Help to Rent schemes and local authority homelessness services should be able to call the UC service centre’s housing element team directly via a dedicated telephone number.
(1 point). There should be regular “partnership” meetings with the DWP, where local agencies can raise issues.
(1 point). It should be possible to split UC payments between each member of a couple.
(1 point). Restriction of eligible rents should end and be replaced with capping of the rents themselves.
(1 point). Delays in paying housing costs should be tackled.
(1 point). Local Housing Benefit authorities should be told as soon as a UC claim is made, so that HB claims can be closed down more quickly.
“Any HB that is paid during the first UC assessment period is classed as an overpayment and is recovered from UC, leading to financial hardship due to the deduction rate”. (Charlotte Johnson).
(1 point). The rental element for 18-21 year-olds should be restored.
(1 point). The benefit cap thresholds should be increased.
(1 point). The benefit cap should be abolished.
(1 point). Passported benefits should run on for those who move from “legacy benefits” to UC.
(1 point). Families including a UC claimant should be entitled to free school meals.
(1 point). The Scottish Government’s proposal to have power to not implement or to replace UC should be endorsed.
3.1 As UC rolls out to wider areas of the country and more diverse groups of claimants and as the full service becomes increasingly prevalent, it is to be expected that more evidence of practical difficulties will emerge, whether related to structure, decision-making or administration.
3.2 Optimists will regard these as teething problems; others will see them as more deep-rooted. Either way, they must be addressed. There should and undoubtedly will be a debate as to how this might be achieved. I hope that the report of this “Top Ten” project will make a contribution.
August 2017
[1] For a recent example, see Beth Foley, Delivering on Universal Credit, Citizens’ Advice, July 2017.
[2] G. Fimister, “Credit Notes”, Insight, Nov. 2016.