|
Post by nickd on Sept 13, 2012 20:49:33 GMT 1
Will Universal Credit merge all working age benefits...In to a 'single' streamlined payment?"Universal Credit will simplify the benefits system by bringing together a range of working-age benefits into a single streamlined payment." - say DWPWell let's just check the DWP's claim out.....
Take the case of John. He's 59 and he's in receipt of Employment & Support Allowance (Support Group] because he has very severe limitations and cannot work, he also receives some Disability Living Allowance. Having paid all his National Insurance contributions he is entitled to the contribution based variant of his Employment & Support Allowance. He lives in his own rented property.
Under the current system John has to claim four separate benefits:
- Employment & Support Allowance (contribution based)
- Housing Benefit (for his rent)
- Disability Living Allowance for his severe mobility & personal care needs
- Council Tax Benefit
|
So will John's life be made any easier once he's been reassessed under the welfare reforms?
Will Universal Credit simplify things for John?
Will John's four benefits all be merged into one?
Here's how John's claim will be affected by welfare reform ....
- John will carry on claiming his Employment & Support Allowance - because it's contribution based it won't be included with his Universal Credit claim.
- John's Housing Benefit will be replaced by Universal Credit, but it will no longer be paid by his local Council.
- John's Disability Living Allowance may well end up being replaced by Personal Independence Payment but it won't be included with his Universal Credit claim.
- John's Council Tax Benefit will be replaced by a localised benefit for Council Tax but it won't be included with his Universal Credit claim.
|
John will still be claiming four separate benefits despite his 'Universal' Credit - hardly simplification is it?
Government is spending billions of pounds in a blaze of publicity aimed at convincing us all that the new Universal Credit will integrate working age benefits into one 'single streamlined payment'. It's a claim which falls flat on its face when you start to look at the detail.
It's only Income Based Employment & Support Allowance which will be included in a Universal Credit claim, the contributory based variant John claims stays outside of the system because it is not a means tested benefit. It's only John's Housing Benefit which becomes part of his Universal Credit claim. Under the current system John's Housing & Council Tax Benefit are both paid by the Local Authority but from next April it all changes as Council's commence the administration of their own 'localised' version of Council Tax Benefit. John's rent payments will be paid directly to him rather than get paid directly to his landlord under the new scheme and what's more they will be paid from a completely different source to his Council Tax Benefit.
John's Disability Living Allowance will eventually be transferred (subject to assessment) to the new Personal Independence Payment (PIP) which has never been integrated into the plans for merging of payments in with Universal Credit.
So John's Employment & Support Allowance stays exactly as it is, his Housing Benefit becomes his Universal Credit, his Council Tax merely becomes localised and his new Personal Independence Payments stays outside of the system.
Now will someone tell me, or rather to the point the DWP: how is this 'simplification' of the system?
We will take a look at some more comparisons in due course, although this one seems to say it all I think; what do you reckon?
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Sept 14, 2012 22:06:29 GMT 1
Now let's look at another typical claimant situation involving a family..... [/color] Take the case of Ben and Barbara and their 3 children: aged 9,11 and 14. Barbara is the carer for their 11 year old son who is disabled. Bob goes to work and the family receive Working & Child Tax Credits, they don’t qualify for any help with their mortgage and nor do they get any help with Council Tax. Under the current system Ben and Barbara have to claim four separate benefits:- They receive Tax Credits: Working & Child Tax Credits from the HMRC
- Carer’s Allowance for Barbara who looks after the family's son.
- Disability Living Allowance for their son
- Child Benefit for all 3 children
|
So will Ben and Barbara's life be made any easier once they've been reassessed under the welfare reforms?
Will Universal Credit simplify things for this family?
Will Ben and Barbara's four main benefits all be merged into one?
Here's how Ben and Barbara's claim will be affected by welfare reform ....- Universal Credit replaces their Tax Credit claim (Working Tax Credit & Child Tax Credit)
- Child Benefit is not included in the Universal Credit
- Carer’s Allowance is not included in the Universal Credit
- Disability Living Allowance is not included in the Universal Credit
|
Ben and Barbara will still have to claim four separate benefits despite their 'Universal' Credit - it's not really simplification is it? So again we see another example of how this unification doesn't really merge payments at all. Some may of course argue that their Working Tax Credits and Child Tax Credits are two separate benefits but existing claimants will be aware that both are paid in the existing system by the HMRC; essentially the claim process and award notices for both the working and child related credits are already unified. In this case the two different credits are reclassified as 'Universal Credit'. The other benefits which Ben and Barbara claim all fall outside of the new Universal Credit because they are non-means tested. How can we claim this to be simplification? It's another example which shows how Universal Credit isn't the 'single streamlined payment' claimed by the DWP. [/size]
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Sept 15, 2012 0:27:38 GMT 1
So perhaps it will be easier to claim Universal Credits in the event of Ben losing his job..... [/color] In the previous post we looked at how Ben and Barbara would be affected by Universal Credit if they were in work. Now let's look at the same family and how they will benefit (or not as the case may be) in the unfortunate event that Bob lost his job. Under the Universal Credit system with Ben working, the family would still be claiming four separate benefits:- Universal Credit replaces their Tax Credit claim (Working Tax Credit & Child Tax Credit)
- Child Benefit is not included in their Universal Credit
- Carer’s Allowance is not included in their Universal Credit
- Disability Living Allowance is not included in their Universal Credit
|
So will Ben and Barbara's life be made any easier with Universal Credit as they move from being in work to unemployed?
Will Universal Credit make it easier to transition from employment to unemployment?
Will Ben and Barbara's four main benefits become all merged into one?
Here's how Ben and Barbara's claim is affected as Ben becomes unemployed....- Ben will be entitled to claim contributory based Jobseeker's Allowance - which is not part of Universal Credit (but see below)
- The Disability Living Allowance claimed for their son is not part of Universal Credit
- The Carer's Allowance claimed for looking after their son is not part of Universal Credit. (but see below)
- The Child Benefit is not part of Universal Credit.
- Because Ben and Barbara are now on a low income - they can claim some Council Tax benefit, but it will not be part of their Universal Credit.
- Their existing Universal Credit claim is altered to take account of how Ben is no longer working but the Children still need to be claimed for. (but see below)
|
Potentially Ben and Barbara may be seen as still having to claim 5 separate benefits!This scenario flags up a number of problems, take it from me these are the kind of problems which you always get when merging contributory based benefits with those which are income based. Anyone in this situation will also be affected by the Universal Credit regulations, they are in draft form but are now at an advanced stage and can therefore be relied upon to get an idea where the problems may be. The potential problems in Ben and Barbara's claim will revolve around the following: - Their Carer's Allowance
- Their mortgage costs
- The correct handling of their claim
- Ben's contributory based Jobseeker's Allowance.
[/b] [/li][/ul] The reason these are all problematic is because because Ben and Barbara's income has fallen so low that they now fall subject to 'means testing' of their non - means tested benefits. Bob's Contribution based Jobseeker's Allowance and the Carer's Allowance are both treated as income in a Universal Credit claim. The problem is how many claim handler's or advisers will recognise this or for that matter how can we be sure it will be picked up by the IT system when a claimant does their claim on-line. Remember claimants will only put in what they consider to be relevant. This is always a classic point of failure in the benefits system and Universal Credit has merely moved it in to the arena for error. Having been told Carer's Allowance and Contributory based Jobseeker's Allowance are not part of Universal Credit, how many claimants are going to think " I don't have to put that in then". It's no good saying there will be comprehensive instruction or advice on tap - the reality is people don't understand or always read the instructions and advice is something the government has made it clear they do not want to fund. The scope for error is immense, in fact it's just waiting to happen. In practice Universal Credit is composed of elements which offset the income which you have to declare. So for the Carer's Allowance there is a 'carer's element' and for Ben and Barbara's mortgage interest costs there is a 'mortgage element'. It's more or less exactly the same as it is in existing income based claims. The Universal Credit will make an allowance for both Ben and Barbara by regarding them as a couple. But remember Bob's Jobseeker's Allowance isn't actually part of the Universal Credit claim but it is very much taken in to account as their income for Universal Credit purposes. Confused? Yes I expect you are, it's no different to the confusion which exists already - its just been extended to a newly named benefit. The confusion doesn't end here because the mortgage interest costs (only the interest is paid) fall to be included as part of Ben and Barbara's Universal Credit but only after a 'qualifying period. It's the point at which all of these elements & allowances apply which marks the point at which the contribution based benefits fall to be assessed as income. In an ideal world Ben and Barbara's Universal Credit should include their Carer's Allowance, housing costs and Bob's Contribution based Jobseeker's Allowance but the problem arises in working out when they fall to be assessed and in recognising the alignment of all the different elements and the dates from when they 'kick in'. Many of us will remember the chaos caused with the implementation of the tax credits system, it resulted in an epidemic of overpayments. The scope for overpayments is far greater with Universal Credit because it's being carried out on such a huge scale. What makes it all the more alarming is that if you make a mistake you risk a new £50 fine, the fine could be the least of your worries because there is also a pronounced determination to prosecute those who are deemed to be 'cheating' the system. We have all seen examples of a hostile media and a renewed DWP stance to get tough in a desire to name and shame anyone who falls foul. Overpayments under the new system will not be subject to the same rights of dispute which currently exist so many claimants simply won't be able to properly contest an unfair decision. When government is asked about the problems all of this creates they stick to script and tell us all how 'work pays'. The emphasis on work is backed up by an assurance that simplifying the benefits system makes it more possible to transition from welfare to work; the new highway for making the transition is Universal Credit which we are all told is 'on track'. Let's just wait and see whether the government's new super - highway from welfare to work is all they say it will be. They can make all the claims they like but the one which promotes Universal Credit as a 'single streamlined payment' is to say the least a gross distortion of the facts. To those of you who don't understand a word of this: welcome to Universal Credit, you'll need to put all your faith in the DWP and the Ministers who tells us it's on track. I can see the newspaper headlines which will highlight all this chaos, it won't be too long before the printing presses start rolling! And they say there's no need for benefit specialists, honestly what planet are they on? It's yet another example which shows how the DWP's claim that Universal Credit is a 'single streamlined payment' is nothing short of a lie. [/size]
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Sept 15, 2012 11:44:09 GMT 1
We've been here before..... But this time it will be worse - a lot worse.....No one is knocking anyone's attempt to reform a system for the better, but this is one almighty untried and untested implementation such as we've never seen before. Iain Duncan Smith only recently compared the introduction of Universal Credit as not dissimilar to introducing Employment & Support Allowance. Is he unaware over how much greater a project Universal Credit really is? Government keeps referring to a figure of 8 million households being brought in to this apparently 'streamlined' system; the figure he should really be concerned with is the number of people rather than the number of household - it is after all people who will be affected rather than houses. The implementation of Working & Child Tax Credits in 2003 was chaotic for many and went on to result in misery being inflicted upon huge numbers of claimants who ended up being overpaid.
Have we learned nothing from our past mistakes?
It doesn't seem we have. Perhaps some of us have short memories and can't remember the chaos, you can go back in time and read about the HMRC chaos here. You can also read a recent Parliamentary 'progress' report which tells you all you really don't want to know. Government thinks they have all the answers - can we really be so sure?
In many respects Universal Credit is a con, it's promoted as the answer to simplification of what we all accept to be a complicated benefits system but it does little to thread it all together. There are still a vast array of other claimants which sit outside of the system but can't be viewed remotely from Universal Credit because many of these 'external' claims will need to taken in to account when assessing Universal Credit. It's a step in the right direction but no where near enough to earn the badge of simplification.
Universal Credit claims to merge six benefits (income based Employment & Support Allowance/ income based Jobseeker's Allowance/Income Support/Housing Benefit/Working Tax Credits/Child Tax Credits) but four of these 'benefits' are already unified. Housing & Council Tax Benefit has been merged for years in its administration by local authorities. Likewise Working & Child Tax Credits are already unified in assessment and payment structures by the HMRC, - it's re-unifying something which has already been unified. They clearly haven't been able to get their heads around merging contributory and income benefits, you have to wonder why. Given that it is such a stumbling block to true unification why is it not being recognised as a potential barrier to the whole system working?
It is this problem over assessment and means testing which led to the extraordinary way they 'reformed' Child Benefit, it was reformed on the basis of identifying higher rate tax band payers and led to an absurd solution being found which cuts off Child Benefit where one earner in a household earns over the limit and yet allows a couple who both earn just below the threshold to still receive it. They've not sorted out the real problems with assessing incomes and on that basis Universal Credit will just embrace those which are constantly flagged up in the current system.
We will go on and look at the problems caused by Universal Credit with some examples of how claims will be problematic in terms of the following:
- Overpayments
- Official error and fraud
- The self employed
- Aligning claims with HMRC 'real time information'
- Trouble - shooting with no funding for trouble shooters
- Phased integration of the different benefits in to UC
- Transitionally protected claims
[/b] [/li][/ul] [/size]
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Sept 15, 2012 23:31:50 GMT 1
Overpayments
The scope for overpayments and the problems caused by them is immense. Take the case of our examples Ben and Barbara. What if under the reforms the Disability Living Allowance paid for their son is stopped as it is decided they don't qualify for its replacement Personal Independence Payment?It would mean they are no longer entitled to the Carer's Allowance.
Now assume that both the Carer's Allowance and Disability Living Allowance are stopped: a problem may arise over their Universal Credit. The problem is this:
Ben and Barbara will think, despite disagreeing with the decision to stop the Disability Living Allowance, everything has been correctly changed on their claim. Right?
Not by any means. If the Universal Credit system does not pick up on the fact the Carer's Allowance and Disability Living Allowance has stopped, Ben and Barbara could end up being wrongly incorrectly paid a caring related addition which is also linked to the son's disability. It happens in existing claims and there is no reason why the same mistakes will not carry on in a Universal Credit claim.
The other problem with overpayments is if Ben and Barbara have an existing and unresolved overpayment on their tax credits. How can anyone be assured it will be correctly resolved and reconciled by the HMRC Tax Credit unit before their claim moves over to Universal Credit. It could mean an unresolved dispute or error just moves from one to the other with no means of sorting it out because it gets lost in the system and no one takes responsibility for it.
These are not just isolated examples, there will be plenty more potential overpayment situations which will arise.
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Sept 15, 2012 23:32:15 GMT 1
Official error and fraud
As in our examples we have highlighted how mistakes can happen under a system which will not be infallible. The problem is government and the DWP are essentially telling us it is infallible. If this is the message they are giving out then they will say the same thing when a mistake is made. if Ben and Barbara incurred, in total innocence, an overpayment the DWP will simply take the line " It's an error on your part because you didn't check the details on your Universal Credit claim which makes it quite clear you should let us know if you are receiving an element you are not entitled to"
Under new legislation in this case Ben and Barbara will NOT be able to appeal against the overpayment, it will be subject to a discretionary code of practice. The code will probably be similar to the one used in Tax Credits; many claimants find it unfair because they cannot take their dispute to an independent Tribunal.
There WILL however still be overpayment decisions which can be appealed but the overall shift is towards reduced rights of appeal.
The risk in this is one which can be related to an increased risk that the DWP will impose a new wave of civil £50 'fines' for claimants who make mistakes. They will be like parking fines - very difficult to dispute.
The bigger risk however is one which can be related to prosecution. Benefit law is very rigid and government has made it quite clear that they want to use private agencies who will data trawl public records. Regrettably it often results in action which is too focussed on blaming the claimant.
Ben and Barbara could end up with a substantial overpayment, a possible fine or worse still a criminal record arising out of a humiliating wrongful conviction in court for benefit fraud.
The papers and their readers will love another expose of yet another cheat; the reality is that these prosecutions drive people to the edge and can be devastating for claimants who are wrongly accused.
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Sept 15, 2012 23:32:43 GMT 1
The self employed
The self - employed are bound to present as a problem in Universal Credit. The biggest problems will revolve around assessed income periods. Typically in the existing Housing & Council Tax Benefit system this is done over periods of much longer than the monthly assessed income period related to Universal Credit. The self employed may well find themselves having to provide two sets of figures: one to the local Council for any Council Tax Benefit which is payable and a second set to the DWP for their Universal Credit. Will their be alignment between the two with no duplication? - I rather suspect this will not be the case.Another problem is over establishing the number of hours worked to meet various thresholds. These have been set at different rates, typically 16, 24 and 30 hours but Government has changed these thresholds to cut off tax credit entitlement. The problem the self - employed have is in establishing their average hours of work carried out 'for or in expectation of payment'. Claimants simply don't know the hours at the outset of an assessed income period and will typically take a number of months to establish a pattern upon which they can reliably be worked out. A lot of the work is initially involved in setting up a business and disputes arise over whether this can be counted in the 'expectation' of remuneration. The problem will increase as more and more claimants are pushed down the self - employment route by Work providers who do not always have a great track record in supporting claimants through what is often their first attempt at self employment.
It can go spectacularly wrong for claimants who are encouraged to become self employed but often have totally unworkable business plans. Under Universal Credit they could find themselves cut off after three months if the DWP incorrectly assumes them to be capable of bringing in an income which may be much greater than the amount the claimant is really bringing in. Overly optimistic projections by those encouraging the self - employed (often to secure a 'sustainment fee') can and often do lead to situations where the claimant is deemed to be in receipt of a much greater income than they really are.
As I understand it self - employed claimants are not being included in the HMRC's 'Real Time Information' system which places a greater burden upon them to continually update the DWP on earnings which they may not be able to accurately report of predict within the assessment periods.
This could be very discouraging for self - employed claimants and could potentially cause many to give up through despair.
An emphasis on fraud detection is likely to lead to increased numbers of the self - employed being subject to investigations over the earnings they are declaring.
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Sept 15, 2012 23:33:17 GMT 1
Aligning claims with HMRC 'real time information'This has already been covered to some degree on the forum, you can read some of my earlier comments here. The fears over 'Real Time Information' (RTI) are undoubtedly being muffled in preference to the message that Government wants to promote. It's their contention that RTI is the best thing since sliced bread and will alleviate employers of a need to supply an annual summary of their payroll's earnings. There's good and bad with this as on the face of it would seem sensible to supply the information when wage details are submitted on a monthly basis. Government wants for instance with RTI to integrate a 'two - way check'. It will data link the figures reported by an employer in relation to an employee's wages with records of the matching payment paid in to their bank account via BACS. This could be seen as intrusive to many and potentially problematic if the BACS payment does not match the reported wage figure; this could happen in cases where the employee is say paid their expenses with their wages. Thus their BACS payment will be different; who's to say this won't trigger an 'inconsistency' which could result in a delayed payment of the Universal Credit paid to the employee? Similarly misalignments could arise in cases where deductions are being made from the employees wages which could produce a variance between the amount of wages used in the assessment and the BACS payment subject to this 'cross - check' in an attempt to verify accuracy of the information.
I rather suspect the real motive behind RTI is one associated with government's obsession with IT and 'data trawling'. It's like a modern day equivalent of the 'child catcher' from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Except of course it won't be a pointy nosed fiend out to catch errant children - it will be one almighty mother of a computer out to catch all those benefit naughty claimants who reside with co-habitants. Yes watch out as they data spin all their records of benefit claimants with employees who have up until now not been brought to the DWP's 'attention'. I can here the Experian fuelled nasty computer growling: "Come on all you nasty little benefit cheats, where are you we're out to get you". Except it won't be lollipops getting handed out as you find yourself banged to rights by RTI - yet another one for the IDS/Grayling slammer. Fraud detection is little talked out about because no - one is really brave enough to say "actually I think it's got all the potential to catch out all the wrong people".
Another issue raised by RTI is that of liability. What if the employer for whatever reason sends in all the wrong information? The claimant will believe everything has been correctly reported by his employer but what if it hasn't?
There's plenty of scope for overpayments caused by employers rather than their employee's but who's going to accept liability? With all the problems caused by reducing rights in the workplace and a limited labour market is an employee really going to turn around and say to his or her boss "actually I think you're liable to pay it all back"?
What happens if RTI goes down or the firm stops paying it's worforce? Will the claimant's payments stop until the DWP sorts out what the problem is?
RTI is not necessarily the answer and it certainly doesn't guarantee what we've all been promised: in case you've forgotten I'm referring to the word 'simplification'. We'll just have to wait and see whether RTI is all it's cracked up to be.
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Sept 15, 2012 23:33:31 GMT 1
Trouble - shooting with no funding for trouble shootersAre they really that mad that they cannot see the need to fund proper avenues of help with the introduction of Universal Credit?
I find it simply incomprehensible that government spends billions of pounds in a complete pretence that it's got all the answers to simplifying a complicated and 'broken' benefits system. Everything with this Government is broken, broken schools, broken hospitals, broken families, broken bendy buses, broken trains, broken planes, broken communities, there seems to be nothing which David Cameron hasn't yet called 'broken'; he's even labelled Britain 'Broken'. With all that is apparently broken I'm just a little bit perplexed as to how it is that we don't need an army of fixers. I'm also a little bit confused as to quickly broken Britain become great when we hosted something as awesome as the Olympics.
I just wonder how quickly we'll go back to calling all the paralympians we recently marvelled as they collected gold; a bunch of scroungers?
To get back to point. Universal Credit has all the potential to be complete and utter chaos, there's no point in pretending otherwise. Yes it can be made to work in the longer term and in that respect I find it frustrating that government appears to want to dispense with us. By 'us' I mean an army of dedicated welfare benefit specialists who could actually help iron out some of the problems. It's no good saying there will be teams of people within the DWP and HMRC, what government department will ever want to admit to its own error? Is there any sign of the DWP or ATOS saying 'sorry we're making far too many mistakes and we promise we're going to put them right'? - not that I've heard.
It annoys the hell out of me to hear how our work has been relegated by Ken Clarke to something which can be done by part time voluntary generalist advisers on a free of charge goodwill basis. I'm not decrying their capability in any of this, but let's get real; volunteering your time for six hours or so a week is no substitute for the skill and experience of a full time paid specialists who knows the welfare system inside out. We've dealt with this for years on a day in and day out basis, it's almost like something which gets in the blood. On a personal level I actually did my time as a volunteer many years ago, I did so unpaid and for six solid full time months to see if I even wanted to take this up as a career on a full time basis. I decided it was the only way I would get a taste of what this is really about on a professional level.
Since then I've worked on thousands of cases in a full time paid capacity and I hate to say it but I do happen to know what I'm taking about, I hope that doesn't sound over-patronising. However I make no apologies for justifying my work as a paid specialist, indeed I see it as something which needs to be shouted from the rooftops. You simply cannot expect the depth of knowledge possessed by benefit specialists to be given for free, it needs to be acquired and paid for just as it would be in any other profession and yes we are 'professional' - ask my MP she'll tell you.
Specialising in welfare benefits is not something you can learn with a few days or even months training, you have to learn by the experience you gain in dealing with the vast array of problems thrown up by the welfare state. It's a subject in itself, it's not just about benefits it's about how changing Parliamentary intention knits with a person's lawful entitlement. You need to well and truly know the Secretary of State before you can take him on and challenge him.
As government's intention's change so does your 'angle of attack' and strategy. There's a need to carefully explain changes in government policy to clients with tact and diplomacy. You also need to be prepared to say "I'm not sure this is right and because I think it's wrong I am going to challenge it". It can mean hours immersed in social security law case law and finding yourself engrossed in volumes upon volumes of complex social security legislation. It requires an analytical and enquiring mind and an ability to recognise and challenge a wrong. You only learn to trouble shoot a problem through experience - it becomes a sixth sense as to where the route of the problem is to be found. The solution cannot be found in any number of 'advice guides' - it's way more complicated than that.
It's absurd that we pay the DWP and ATOS and our Politicians to create so many mistakes, it insults me these people rub salt in to the wounds by justify their existence in pretending to fix what they are in fact breaking. You can kid the wider public in to thinking you've cracked the welfare state with all these computer systems and Universal Credit but you're (by which I mean the government) not kidding anyone who works in this field that you've got this right, indeed you're a long way off.
Benefit specialist can see what's going to go wrong, I have (in my own unpaid time) given you examples of just some of the potential problems which will arise with Universal Credit in the preceding posts. I didn't work it out by reading some 'a to z guide of potential problems with Universal Credit', it comes through having a knowledge of a system few understand. What I would dearly like to be able to do is to help government (yes I mean what I say) to help to iron out the problems which I see on the horizon. It's the right way to make it easier for those we try our very best to help.
There's a need to work with us in trouble shooting the problems which are destined to get worse if they remain unchallenged. There's a need to work with us in accepting that we will challenge a system whenever we see that it is wrong. If government is unwilling to fund effective challenge you can only conclude it is afraid of being exposed as having got this wrong.
And lastly whilst on this topic there's a need to pay us properly for helping to put things right; we cannot do this for free. You never know one day you the (government) may just thank us for helping you to steer away from a disaster which you are about to bring upon this country unless you accept you haven't got everything right with the implementation of Universal Credit.
You've put your name to it Mr Duncan Smith; now see sense and let us help you get this right, it will be one almighty embarrassment if you've got it all wrong.
And if you need should a reference then the best I can offer you is one written by your very own Prime Minister Mr David Cameron. Read the text I have highlighted and you will see what I mean. These were the promises Mr Cameron made back in 2009 when making a pledge to look after the vulnerable with compassion. Mr Cameron could see the case for funding welfare benefit specialists over completion of Disability Living Allowance claim forms, he now needs to do the same in helping people through something as potentially chaotic as the Universal Credit.
I should be preaching to the converted, one would have to suspect that if Mr Cameron has since changed his mind, his words back in 2009 are now exposed as being somewhat shallow.
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Sept 16, 2012 8:36:42 GMT 1
Phased integration of the different benefits in to UC
This could be the part of Universal Credit that earns government a very bad media reception. Why? Because they've bigged it up so much and what people up and down the country are expecting is this amazing new one 'size fits all' benefit which is going to swallow up and merge everything in to one.
The public won't understand and nor will they want to hear all the excuses Government will need to put up when it transpires Universal Credit is far from all it's been cracked up to be. Claimants in tax credit cohorts are going to be told " no you carry on claiming your tax credits for now; but we will transfer your Jobseeker's Allowance over to Universal Credit". Claimants will still be running different claims alongside until Government is 'ready' to phase in the rest of their claim. It's not just claimants who will feel short changed it's the public as well. The media will love it, they always do when something goes spectacularly wrong.
In many ways phased implementation will be the cause of problems rather than a means of avoiding them. Claimants and Jobcentre staff will be utterly confused over what's going to be Universal Credit and what's not. It'll be like waiting for the Grand National and then seeing one horse released one hour before the next. Expect multiple boos as Government is asked " do you really know what you're doing?" Thousands upon thousands of claimants will be going " Nooooooooooo". Government seems to fail to comprehend the complexity by running different strands of the system together in such a haphazard way. Iain Duncan - Smith recently compared it all to Labour introducing the Employment & Support Allowance. Er hello? do we not comprehend the differences, not least in claimant numbers?
Government is being absurdly optimistic in its implementation time table. All of this at a time when they are cutting down DWP staff and closing Jobcentres in the interests of efficiency - honestly what planet are they on because it sure isn't the same one I'm standing on.
Staggered and phased implementation will have decision maker's reaching for the regulation bible without a clue as to which particular one they should be looking at, I can hear them reeling in horror as they grapple with a computer system which goes on overheat when burdened with so many different 'claimant journeys'.
The introduction of what seems to be a paperless system is one which rather worries me. In the past when a unique claim situation arises the 'relevant department' (which ever that one may be) will have seen sense and created a 'clerical case'. It enabled them to work things out manually or should I say with the benefit of a human touch. But oh no, DWP staff will not be allowed to think for themselves. They'll have to consult the computer at every twist and turn. When the computer system says 'no' it really will mean no. This is where the delights of such wondrous 'claim events' as overlapping benefits will have the computer baffled. What IDS hasn't properly considered is how computers are only as good as those who programme them.
Your average IT bod will know how to programme a computer of that there is no doubt. They'll build in every safeguard known to mankind, passwords for different departments and denied access to those who get locked out of the system. I can't help but wonder how many will walk out in disgust or risk ageing rather rapidly as they sit and stare at the computer which doesn't want or know how to play ball.
I can just imagine the numbers of claimants who are told to claim Universal Credit instead of their Jobseeker's Allowance, only to learn that their claim has been rejected because it's contributory rather than income - based. Imagine the anger in the Jobcentre when the poor claims handler tells the 'customer' to come back in six months time once their contributory period has ended. I have a nasty but certain feeling we'll be seeing a few more people setting themselves alight outside the JCP.
Oh heaven help us! But all's well as IDS reassures the house it's on "track, on budget and on time". Yes and so was that damn train before it hit the points just short of Potters Bar station.
Remember what a catastrophic disaster that was?
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Sept 16, 2012 12:35:56 GMT 1
Transitionally protected claimsI thought I would reserve comment on the thorny subject of transitional protection until I had listened to Iain Duncan Smith and Lord Freud give their evidence to the Parliamentary committee earlier today on an evidence session in to the implementation of Universal Credit, I'm not sure it was worth the wait - IDS and his Lordship got an easy ride if you ask me considering the concern which is growing over this potentially disastrous scheme. They certainly got away with having to answer very few challenging questions on transitional protection.
Transitional protection is affording a claimant the same rights to the benefits they originally claimed for during a 'transitional' period after which they become subject to the same rules relating to benefits under the new rules. It's a complicated process as essentially in transitional claims there are three sets of regulations to consider:
- (A) The rules relating to original entitlement.
- (B) The transitional rules applied as claimants go from (A) to (C)
- (C) The rules relating to new benefits claimed after a certain date.
[/b][/li][/ul] On the face of it the early indications on transitional entitlement seem to be reasonably fair. You can read through a broad outline of how transitional protection will apply here. It's only generalised and should not be read as the regulations which will apply. Transitional protection always flags up problems as the legislators get to grips with drafting complex rules, not least because they overlap with so many other areas of related legislation. Government gives an assurance that existing claimants will be able to stay on the same rates of benefit as they currently receive but only during the transitional period; after which their entitlement will potentially fall in line with the rates relating to newer amounts. It claims this to be fair system because Universal Credit apparently (a) pays a higher amount for those facing the most severe disabilities, and (b) affords a claimant the best chance of moving in to work. Welfare to work is at the heart of Universal Credit they claim but to date we've heard very little about precisely where all this 'work'is actually going to come from. No one claiming under the existing rules is going to like having their benefits changed. The best they can hope for is by and large to be transitionally protected. The problem is that transitional protection only applies to those who have an entitlement worthy of protection. And here we have the catch: what they do is remove your existing entitlement so you don't actually have anything to transitionally protect! It's crafty but the reality is that claimants will only retain their entitlement if they don't find it being removed before transition. Take the case of someone who is currently on Income Support and receives the middle rate of Disability Living Allowance and lives on their own with no one claiming Carer's Allowance for them. At the moment they will receive an Income Support amount made up of three elements: - Their basic personal allowance
- A disability premium
- A severe disability premium
In theory they should get to keep this throughout the transitional period. But the new rules are largely dispensing with premiums so after a while the claimant will find their income falling. The government can quicken up the process of reducing a claimant's entitlement by reducing it before the transition phase. If a decision is made prior to transition that the claimant is no longer entitled to their middle rate of Disability Living Allowance in their care component (as in the case of the single person I have mentioned) then they lose their severe disability premium in their Income Support and thus cannot gain from transitional protection because at the time of transition the entitlement has already been removed. So claimants have to be wary of being reassessed prior to transition. [/size]
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Oct 18, 2012 23:44:46 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Dec 31, 2012 11:18:45 GMT 1
Universal credit plan 'is a disaster in the making', says minister just months ahead of launch David Cameron's new benefits initiative 'set to fail'[/center] Universal credit scheme criticised by Cabinet minister
New system will replace list of unemployment handouts By JASON GROVES - Daily Mail online...
"The universal credit scheme is a disaster waiting to happen, a cabinet minister has warned.
The initiative, which is the centrepiece of David Cameron’s welfare reforms, is due to begin with a pilot scheme in April and a national roll-out in October.
Aimed at making it pay to return to work, the single benefit will replace a raft of unemployment and in-work handouts.Heading for disaster: David Cameron's new benefits reforms are losing support in the Cabinet One Cabinet minister was yesterday reported to have told friends: ‘The information technology for the new system is nowhere near ready. It’s a disaster waiting to happen.’ And Whitehall sources have confirmed the scheme has been put on the Treasury’s ‘watch-list’ of projects deemed to pose a significant risk.
Any problems would be embarrassing for the Prime Minister, who placed welfare reform at the centre of his new year message yesterday.
He said: ‘When people say we’ve got to stop our welfare reforms because somehow it is cruel to expect people to work, we are saying “No”.
'Getting people into good jobs is absolutely vital, not just for them, but for all of us.
'And when there is a fight on our hands to change our schools, we are ready and willing to have it because having a world-class education is the only way our children are going to get on in this world.’
'Concerned': Chancellor George Osborne
Mr Cameron said the Coalition had ‘inherited a welfare system that was frankly out of shape, that paid people not to work’ – the problem the universal credit scheme is designed to solve. Whitehall concern about universal credit centres on a vast IT system developed with HM Revenue and Customs, which is meant to give officials up-to-date data on an individual’s income.
The Department for Work and Pensions insists that early trials are encouraging but there are grave concerns elsewhere in Whitehall about whether it is ready to be rolled out to the entire country. A source pointed out that Mr Osborne had included funding for the scheme in this month’s autumn statement on the economy. The Chancellor supports the principle of the scheme but is said to be alarmed by the possibility of significant problems with such a high profile scheme affecting so many people in the run-up to the next election.
A spokesperson for the Department for Work and Pensions denied the scheme was in trouble, adding: ‘Universal Credit is on time and under budget. It will start to be rolled out nationally from October 2013, making three million households better off and ensuring work always pays." www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255085/Universal-credit-plan-disaster-making-says-Minister-just-months-ahead-launch.html
|
|
|
Post by nickd on Dec 31, 2012 12:33:28 GMT 1
Nicknd
Guardian Comment: 31 December 2012 11:28 AMLink to this comment
"Someone needs to stop IDS in his beloved 'tracks'; he's becoming absolutely reckless and runaway in the wild & frankly absurd sweeping statements which he is coming out with in defence of his all too clearly failing radical overhaul of the welfare system.
He's dismissive of deaths arising out of the Work Capability Assessments in the ESA reassessment programme. A programme which is in absolute chaos with appeals up by 40%, 425,000 stuck in an 'assessment phase' lasting 12 months and despite millions (and yes it really is millions) of DWP decisions (topping 130,000 per month as revealed by Robert Devereux in Parliament) the overall IB claimant count has gone down by all of 32,900 in four years of the programme - it's not achieving anything and looks very unlikely to be concluded by IDS's planned merger date in 2014/15 into Universal Credit.
It's not even universal, many claimants on four separate benefits will still be on four benefits after implementation; it's a frankly ludicrous claim for IDS to call it 'one single streamlined payment!
Tax credits are bound to have increased since 2003. For one they included Child Tax Credits as the replacement for child dependency additions in other benefits - it's obvious there will be a rise!
IDS just doesn't get the welfare benefits system. The whole process of annual reconciliation was meant to reduce the need for regular reporting of changes. An overpayment is a natural by - product of the process and means it gets carried forward from one year to the next - much of it is simply the system rather than fraud.
The problem has always been acceptance of official error by the HMRC when it came to the correct inputting of a change in the customer's circumstances. It was wrong to do away with statutory rights of appeal and now people find themselves stuck with whatever HMRC decides in application of their 'discretionary code' on overpayment recovery. IDS is doing nothing to change this, indeed he is making it many times worse by further reducing the rights to dispute,reducing the reportable income level thresholds and regularity at which the claimant has to report changes - it's an absolute recipe for disaster.
In truth; IDS is now realizing the complexities within a system which he stupidly thought was 'simple to fix The reason these complexities are coming to light is because his beloved friends in IT are flagging up error after error as they 'cleanse' claims before moving them towards the now doomed Universal Credit. It's all about pointing the finger at the claimant rather than at those who call everything 'broken' without having the first clue as to how to fix it.
The other problem IDS has is that which he has with his own chancellor; Osborne's not giving him enough cash to do the job properly and until they get their own budget sorted out IDS should stop throwing his toys out of the pram and blaming the claimant and concede defeat before this goes spectacularly pear - shaped.
This madness has to stop IDS."
www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/dec/31/iain-duncan-smith-tax-credits?commentpage=1
|
|