The state benefits system mega-thread.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It's been accepted by the Government that this was an erroneous way to manage the migration and was nothing to do with the DWP being "helpful" or "generous".

The one year restriction on Contribution Based ESA for those in the WRAG was brought in on 1/5/12 by the Cameron Government.

The Coalition Government, led by Cameron and Clegg.

[nomadking]

I was puzzled when the story originally came out as to why large numbers of people didn't complain when their benefits where reduced. The reality was that their benefits weren't reduced, which is why they didn't notice anything amiss. Under the old pre-2011 rules, no extra money.


As I understand it, there had been no automatic transition from contribution based IB to income related IB. You had to put in a specific and separate claim for income related IB. With ESA there was no separate claim required, although I'm not sure what mechanism was there to move from one to the other.


With income-related ESA came other possible additional benefits. The post-2010 change giving a one year limit on contribution based ESA, automatically brought forward the income-related stage. Without that change they wouldn't have been eligible for anything extra.


The assumption was made by DWP staff that if if somebody was already on contribution based IB, then they should automatically be transferred to the contribution based ESA. On the face of it, nothing unreasonable about that. The issue was that if their finances were such that if they had put in a fresh claim for income based ESA, that is what they would have received along with the additional benefits.

Who is due arrears?
2.9 To qualify for arrears people will have:
• had their claim converted to ESA from older-style incapacity benefits;
• had a claim that was still live at 21 October 2014; and
• been awarded contribution-based ESA only, but had an underlying entitlement to income-related ESA
(and met the eligibility criteria for one or more premiums at the time of conversion).

The transfers would still have taken place under Labour, and the error still there. It's just so happens the bulk of the transitions were made post Labour, some will have been made under Labour. Labour should have specified that the transition process also evaluated the claimants income-related status, seeing as ESA now covered both types.


Nothing sinister, underhand, or dishonest took place.

2.3 The root cause of the error was that the Department’s processes did not deliver
what was set out in law. Social security legislation from 2010 imposed a duty on
the Department to award on conversion what would have been awarded if a new
claim for ESA was made. As ESA is made up of two strands (contribution-based
and income‑related), this would have required an assessment of entitlement to both
strands of the benefit. In practice, the Department did not require its decision-making
staff to gather the information they needed to make this assessment. The Department
described the process in place at the time as set out below:
• Claimants’ existing benefits were used as a proxy. The Department told us that
it used an automated process to transfer those in receipt of an income-related
benefit, such as Income Support, to income-related ESA, and assumed those
solely in receipt of a contribution-based benefit, such as Incapacity Benefit, would
transfer to contribution-based ESA.
• Claimants who were not already receiving an income-related benefit were to
be invited to provide additional income data if they thought they might have
an additional entitlement.
• Claimants were contacted by telephone prior to the conversion to explain the
process and next steps. Claimants then received a letter at the point of conversion
advising them of their payment type and rate.

[denphone]

DWP staff problems leave carers with years of overpaid benefit debt.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...d-benefit-debt

Staff shortages at the Department for Work and Pensions have led to thousands of carers being overpaid benefits that they could be repaying for years, a report by the government’s spending watchdog has found.

Frank Field MP, chair of the work and pensions committee, said the report “devastatingly laid bare the incompetence at DWP, and its stark human cost”.

The NAO found that staff shortages meant that many people who had notified DWP about changing circumstances had not had their details processed.

The NAO’s investigation followed the Guardian’s revelation that a growing number of carers were facing fines and prosecutions as DWP sought to claw back overpayments.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by denphone

DWP staff problems leave carers with years of overpaid benefit debt.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...d-benefit-debt

NAO finds many overpayments lasted decades, with at least 133 carers now owing up to £20,000

Obviously lack of staff wasn't/isn't the underlying problem.

I suspect very poor oversight by the government(s) is the real reason.

[Taf]

I knew my daughter had been refused PIP when a letter arrived to say my Carers Allowance was to stop. The letter from PIP took ages to arrive.

Now 5 weeks after requesting a Mandatory Reconsideration of her case, and I'm unable to get through on their helpline to confirm it is being processsed. Others on a public support forum are being told after many weeks that their request letter was not received. Despite many of them being sent "sign for".

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by nomadking

I was puzzled when the story originally came out as to why large numbers of people didn't complain when their benefits where reduced. The reality was that their benefits weren't reduced, which is why they didn't notice anything amiss. Under the old pre-2011 rules, no extra money.


As I understand it, there had been no automatic transition from contribution based IB to income related IB. You had to put in a specific and separate claim for income related IB. With ESA there was no separate claim required, although I'm not sure what mechanism was there to move from one to the other.


With income-related ESA came other possible additional benefits. The post-2010 change giving a one year limit on contribution based ESA, automatically brought forward the income-related stage. Without that change they wouldn't have been eligible for anything extra.


The assumption was made by DWP staff that if if somebody was already on contribution based IB, then they should automatically be transferred to the contribution based ESA. On the face of it, nothing unreasonable about that. The issue was that if their finances were such that if they had put in a fresh claim for income based ESA, that is what they would have received along with the additional benefits.


The transfers would still have taken place under Labour, and the error still there. It's just so happens the bulk of the transitions were made post Labour, some will have been made under Labour. Labour should have specified that the transition process also evaluated the claimants income-related status, seeing as ESA now covered both types.

Nothing sinister, underhand, or dishonest took place.

I really don't understand why you seek to politicise matters in your posts at every opportunity.

If something good/bad happens under Labour/Tories it's fair enough to point it out, but you seem to want to defend the Tories at every turn and, if there are any issues that arise, blame it on Labour or say that it would also have happened under Labour (in your opinion).

I don't view this as a political thread, more of a place where people can share experiences, impart information etc.

I don't know about anyone else, but i'm only interested in facts and have no regard for any underlying political agenda.

[denphone]

Universal credit is 'Orwellian', says former high court judge.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...gh-court-judge

A former high court judge has described universal credit as “Orwellian” because of its tendency to create and exacerbate misery for claimants even while it professes to be rescuing them from hardship.

The charity criticised the “opaque” way in which individuals’ monthly benefits payments were calculated, and said the lack of information provided to claimants who wished to challenge the calculation was in some cases unlawful.

“There is something Orwellian about a system which is intended to alleviate hardship yet is administered in ways which generate and aggravate human misery. Whether this is happening by accident or by design is an argument for another time and place.”

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I really don't understand why you seek to politicise matters in your posts at every opportunity.

If something good/bad happens under Labour/Tories it's fair enough to point it out, but you seem to want to defend the Tories at every turn and, if there are any issues that arise, blame it on Labour or say that it would also have happened under Labour (in your opinion).

I don't view this as a political thread, more of a place where people can share experiences, impart information etc.

I don't know about anyone else, but i'm only interested in facts and have no regard for any underlying political agenda.

I merely respond to politicising of matters by others. I imparted the explanation of what had gone on and included sections of the National Audit Office report about the matter. That was more imparting of information and facts than anybody else seems to do.

As I pointed out, when the original story came out I was puzzled as to why they didn't notice a drop in money. When looking into it, they hadn't had a drop in money, which is why it took some time to pick up the oversight.

[RichardCoulter]

I think that it's fair enough to respond if someone brings politics into it, but you do sometimes bring party politics into things unneccesarily.

For example, if someone points out a fact that the Government of the day (who happens to be a Conservative Government at the moment) makes a change to social security policies or regulations, you come back with something like "it's Labours fault" or "Labour would have done the same thing" (in your opinion).

That's fine for a political thread, but I don't believe that it's appropriate to bring party politics into this thread unduly.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I think that it's fair enough to respond if someone brings politics into it, but you do sometimes bring party politics into things unneccesarily.

For example, if someone points out a fact that the Government of the day (who happens to be a Conservative Government at the moment) makes a change to social security policies or regulations, you come back with something like "it's Labours fault" or "Labour would have done the same thing" (in your opinion).

That's fine for a political thread, but I don't believe that it's appropriate to bring party politics into this thread unduly.

The subject of benefits is highly political, I'm afraid, Richard. There's no escaping it.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The subject of benefits is highly political, I'm afraid, Richard. There's no escaping it.

Its only political because some politicians chose to make it political on the basis they can score political points from it.

Originally Posted by denphone

Its only political because some politicians chose to make it political on the basis they can score political points from it.

It’s political because benefits on the scale of a welfare state can only be paid by a government, and a government can only operate on the basis of policy.

As we are a free and democratic country there has to be space for competing ideas - different potential policies. There’s no escaping that.

It is a mistake to use “make it political” as if that is a bad thing. It isn’t. Tribal point scoring is a sub-set of our political culture, but it is not an essential component. It is possible to be political without being poisonous.

[Taf]

Originally Posted by Chris

It is possible to be political without being poisonous.

Please tell the Conservatives that.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Taf

Please tell the Conservatives that.

And Labour..