to worry that some people on benefits won't manage when payments are made monthly

[SuedeEffectPochette]

Of course, many people on benefits are doubtless great at managing a budget, but at the moment people are paid weekly, so if money runs out, it's only a day or so (still bad enough). But when payments are monthly, some people may have a couple of weeks of no money - what is going to happen to them? Also Housing Benefit won't be paid direct to landlords any more, which will lead to a massive increase in homelessness if that money is not passed on. If you have run out of money for food, you won't be paying any to your landlord will you? I think the government should stick to weekly payments.

THere is lots of money here, but its all in the same few pockets, so lots of poverty too.

You could use that statement to describe the whole of the UK.

"I'm not reading it as they can't go abroad, I'm reading it as they aren't entitled to the benefits why they are abroad."

It's not clear what is meant. It says you will become "ineligible for UC". None of this has been properly documented and explained, so we can't be sure this even applies to holidays, but if it does it seems likely to me they'd mean the claim will be stopped completely from the wording.

Re holidays:

27. However where a Universal Credit claim is already ?live?, we will allow a temporary period of absence for these reasons to avoid the need for frequent changes of circumstances and to offer a level of stability when someone is removed from the household. This means allowing, for existing members of a Universal Credit claim (whether adults, children or non-dependents): ? Up to 1 month temporary absence abroad for any reason (e.g. holiday, visiting relatives)1; or a longer period of up to 6 months temporary absence abroad for reasons of medical treatment2.
28. During this time Universal Credit is to be payable as normal but after which the person will no longer be recognised in calculating the Universal Credit Maximum Amount.

I read that as you can't make a new claim while you're abroad (fair enough), and if you're already on universal credit you can spend up to one month per year out of the country for whatever reason without it affecting the claim. But a holiday of longer than a month means they'd reassess, and whoever's off on holiday would be classed as not part of the household, thus reducing how much the household is entitled to.

StormyBrid I'm also having a look at the detail This document if anyone else wants a read!

It could be read to mean that, I hope it does. It depends what they mean by a "new claim"

" Temporary Absence

26. Universal Credit brings together several benefits and credits with a number of separate sets of temporary absence rules which require simplifying and aligning across adult claimants, children and non-dependents. Under Universal Credit there are two categories of absence that would generally make a new adult claimant ineligible for Universal Credit. These are being outside GB and being in prison. In addition, where a new claim includes a child in prison or one that has been taken into Local Authority Care the child will similarly be ignored for benefit calculation purposes."

I would hope that by "new claim" they mean the point at which any claim is new and once it becomes live then point 27 applies. However I think they are also talking about differences in claims (I forget what now?) depending on if you are coming over from the old system or are a new claimant, so it's possible it means this I guess, in which case it would affect many more people.

I am less worried on that point however having read more from the document though!

It's ridiculous that they are rushing this all through without explaining the detail. This stuff affects people's lives!

The reason we're all speculating on what it all means is it's so hard to get reliable information on this!

Rhiannon86

A few minutes ago you were saying it was reasonable to stop everyone who gets UC leaving the country.
Now you're saying it is reasonable for them to leave the country.

Do make your mind up, which is it?

Or is your criteria simply that whatever the government says must be reasonable?

And of course, those regulations are nine months old; who knows whether it's the most current version? Point 6 says they'll be continuing to refine until the Autumn, so in theory there ought to be a newer, revised version floating around.

Point 44 is making me raise an eyebrow - looks as though for single parents we'll be losing the current system whereby whoever gets the Child Benefit gets all other associated benefits. Hmm.

118 and 119 - that looks suspiciously as though disabled couples are going to get royally shafted.

229 is of particular interest to me. Was it this thread or a similar one that mentioned the grey area surrounding claimant commitment in families with children aged between one and four? There's reference to "a claimant who is a lone parent of, or nominated responsible carer for, a child between the ages of one and five years old". Would a "nominated responsible carer" be whichever parent is staying home to look after the kids? And how on earth does that fit in with the requirement for the earnings of the entire "benefit unit" to be high enough - would it mean a couple with a young child only need to be earning the equivalent of thirty five hours at minimum wage?

This is making my head hurt.

"looks as though for single parents we'll be losing the current system whereby whoever gets the Child Benefit gets all other associated benefits. Hmm."

AFAIK UC will be paid to one person in a couple only. (So for many that will mean all benefits except child benefit.)

This will be a disaster for people in abusive / controlling relationships.

Oh I'm sorry I totally misread what you wrote StormyBrid!

You're talking about lone parents and I'm taking about couples. Sorry

All benefits except child benefit for now. I can't imagine it'll stay separate forever. You're right though, the potential for financial abuse is definitely worrying. Wasn't that part of why they brought in child benefit for mothers in the first place?

For those who missed it, delurked posted above that their will be special measures (more frequent payments allowed) for people who can't cope with monthly. So the OP's question is answered.

there

I do know the difference, just frequently find there is a disconnect between brain and fingers.

(Have just corrected "no" to "know" in the previous sentence. Wonder if I need to see a brain-doctor.)

which question are you referring to chris?

It does not actually say that. What it does say is support could be available and a different way of paying is being explored but nothing about this is mentioned on the dwp info.

And I have an inkling that that perticular line has been inserted to appease the masses with no meaning.

It is rather woolie.

chris they said "All cases will be considered on an individual basis, and some people in vulnerable circumstances, ... could be eligible for alternative arrangements."

Do you trust them to identify every case where people may have trouble with monthly payments? Or to make accurate assessments?

Don't forget this is from the same set of reforms which the Tories announced would not make anyone worse off. Actually the Chartered Institute of Housing estimate that the poorest 400,000 in society will be worse off, and the Institute of Fiscal Studies estimate that in total, 2.8 million people will find themselves worse off.

This is going to be administered by the DWP, and outsourced contractors, who have a terrible record of accurately identifying those fit for work for example.

"Of the claimants Atos found fit for work(for claims starting between October 2008 and November 2011), 20 per cent of those decisions were overturned either by DWP staff or appeal tribunals." Link here

Reports looking at a longer period found a third of Atos decisions about fitness to work overturned in appeal. BBC article here

So, back to the OP, YANBU to worry that many people won't manage.

The last time I met ŵith a dwp reform manager his take on it was that it was likely that they would have to make some modifications for people who got into trouble but that at the moment they (as in operational staff) have been given no indication at all that it was to happen.

Ie he was almost saying, it's going to be a balls up but they (government) are going to wait till there is carnage before doing anything.

I know a lot of you will disagree but I feel really sorry for a lot of th staff having to implement these changes, many of them are decent people and have their own bills to pay.

i agree rhonda. it's the front line staff that will take the brunt of this day after day when the shit hits the fan. it wont be shiny dave or IBS (his initials make me think of IBS and his policies make me feel like i have IBS)

:o @ IBS. I think the same.

My wages and tax credits/child benefit all come monthly, my housing benefit also doesn't go straight to my landlord but I've never missed a rent payment in 5 years. Yabu to think people who receive some benefits are crap at managing money but I agree that a minority perhaps aren't very good at passing on housing benefit

Well whenever he speaks I think "Bullshit" so IBS suits him pretty well.

just going on the title of the thread - YABU; lots of people in work (even NMW) have to budget for a month so why should those on benefits be any different?

I have read through this thread and I have noticed that people are up in arms that the state it making people stand on their own in regards to budgeting and not 'nannying' them but on the other hand are angry that the state is nannying them about not going abroad; you can't have it both ways.

The country is in massive debt and can not afford to continue in the manner which far too many people have become accustomed; paying benefits monthly is going to save a fortune in terms of costs to the government and I would rather see this cost cutting rather than any more services being cut. For those who are arguing against it; which service would you prefer to cut rather than save this money?

I will make this clear - I hate this government with a passion and hope they get voted out asap, but I also am dreading the alternative. I don't read the DM either and have had to rely on benefits in the past

Cricket Lots of people on NMW are on benefits.
Oh, and yes, this country is in massive debt, with a government that is vilifying the poor and increasing the debt, having said that, I'm inclined to agree with you to some extent, in that I'm also worried about the alternative, because currently, there doesn't seem to be one!

I work and have to budget monthly. The last days of the month are grim.
Why should it be different if you are on benefits? ( and I have been on them before and grateful for them but I still hold this point of view)

are people not reading the thread?