Pleased that 4 mothers who took the government to court over universal credit won.

[birdsandroses]

I confess not an AIBU, posting for traffic. I am very happy that four brave single working mothers won their court case about the way UC is administered, although it still could go to appeal. UC has been discussed a few times on Mumsnet with some sharing how it is causing a lot of hardship for some. Some posters have questioned this, though not all.

I have read that due to the way payments fall working claimants can find that if they get two salary payments falling over one calendar month, such as paid early due to bank holiday. the UC part is stopped that month. Some on threads here have said that if the payments are taken over a whole year then financially they don’t lose out but obviously when you are on a very tight budget it can cause huge problems if you are not aware you will suddenly have no UC payment that month. However, others have said the claimant does lose out financially over the year as well as the difficulty of budgeting when one month there is no payment. I couldn’t work it out as much as I tried. However, newspaper articles today are saying that people can be out of pocket. One of the four women who brought the case to court was cited as being £500 down over the year. I have now gathered the reason they are out of pocket is they lose work allowances for any month they are wrongly classed as not receiving a salary.

The Children Poverty Action group gives full details here in their press release about the case. cpag.org.uk/content/high-court-finds-dwp-unlawful-universal-credit-assessments

Amber Rudd has today finally acknowledged problems with UC and is making some changes although many organisations say though welcome they are still not enough.

The real time checking with HMRC seems a good idea in itself, I never used legacy benefits, but DHs hours are flexible, so we know if we have a crap month than UC will make up some of the difference.
On the flip side of that, DH gets paid 4 weekly and we have lost out on money someone's (thankfully as we have no work search criteria no work coach closed the claim as they didn't look at it).
I think on paper it's a good idea to use HMRC and the calculations be used in "real time" but it still needs a lot more work.
Seems mad they came up with a system, experts spent a long time on it, and then George Osbourne said "we're doing this but cheaper to save money" 🤨
Sure the experts were thrilled, who now get most the blame for the shitty system.

@mcdayaremavel you’re right, it doesn’t even out, not only do I lose my work allowance but the next month the award is capped at the maximum and it doesn’t make up the difference.. purely because I got paid early for Christmas.

It's bad enough that the government keeps on getting it wrong - all these super duper flagship schemes. But why does it have to be taken to court in order to listen?

twitter.com/kathiebennett/status/1083828389415391232

KATHIE BENNETT
‏ @kathiebennett
20h20 hours ago

Universal Credit work coach has just told a grieving mum she wants her to log on daily to fill in her on line journal, this lady buried her son 7 weeks ago, her work coach said she will give her until feb 5th to get a job as by then she needs get over loss and get a job FUMING

Charlotte Hughes. The Poor Side Of life
‏ @charlotteh71
5h5 hours ago
Replying to @kathiebennett @depresseddawg74

Sadly not unusual. I've known them to completely disregard their bereavement and have asked them t attend a signing on appointment on the day of the funeral. If they didn't attend they'd be sanctioned. Evil.
3 replies 18 retweets 18 likes
Dolly
❤️
‏ @DollyKostka
5h5 hours ago

That is evil !
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Charlotte Hughes. The Poor Side Of life
‏ @charlotteh71
5h5 hours ago

I know one man who was sat next to his mum on her death bed, she had hours to live. He phone the Jobcentre explaining and asked if he could have another appointment, they refused so he had to leave his mum and she died without him.

I'm sure there is something in the UC legislation that says bereaved people should have no work search commitments.

I'm sure there is something in the UC legislation that says bereaved people should have no work search commitments.

I'd like to see that source. As it is even under the old system it was only 8 weeks.

It’s six months

the Universal Credit Regulations 2013

Circumstances in which requirements must not be imposed
99.(1) Where paragraph (3), (4), (5) or (6) applies;
(a)
the Secretary of State must not impose a work search requirement on a claimant; and
(b)
able and willing immediately to take up work under a work availability requirement means able and willing to take up paid work, or attend an interview, immediately once the circumstances set out in paragraph (3), (4), (5) or (6) no longer apply.
(2) A work search requirement previously applying to the claimant ceases to have effect from the date on which the circumstances set out in paragraph (3), (4), (5) or (6) begin to apply.
(3) This paragraph applies where
(a)
the claimant is attending a court or tribunal as a party to any proceedings or as a witness;
(b)
the claimant is a prisoner;
(c)
regulation 11(3) (temporary absence from Great Britain for treatment or convalescence) applies to the claimant;
(d)
any of the following persons has died within the past 6 months
(i)
where the claimant was a member of a couple, the other member,
(ii)
a child or qualifying young person for whom the claimant or, where the claimant is a member of a couple, the other member, was responsible, or
(iii)
a child, where the claimant was the childs parent;

The claimant could of course also start handing in sick notes if bereaved. They may or may not pass a work capability assessment but it would certainly buy them more time after a bereavement before they have any work commitments.

PlumpSyrianHamster 👏. Exactly.

Helenadove, that’s awful but sadly I know such events are happening too often. And by a post above it sounds like work coaches don’t even know the regulations and shouldn’t be doing some of these things Ben by the law. presume this is due to top down orders to create a punitive environment for claimants.

@MitziK, thanks for the numbers clearly demonstrating how claimants how the system means payments do not equal out over the year.

Typo, ‘claimants how’ should be not be written there.

It's bad enough that the government keeps on getting it wrong - all these super duper flagship schemes. But why does it have to be taken to court in order to listen?

I am presuming because it’s very possible they didn’t get it wrong, they were just seeing how much they could get away with?

Classic example of how the Left feeds into facilitating the Right by their support of female lone parenthood as an unquestionable good thing

What is it you would have us do? Put our children in care? Statistically the majority of lone parents were married or in long term relationships. What happens when relationships breakdown? Perhaps we should return to the days when black eyes, bruises and the neighbours turning a blind eye was considered reasonable? Lone parenthood sure as hell seems better to me than watching your father beat your mother after three pints on a Saturday night.

The government were told by the civil service that UC would be a fuck up, yet they pressed on anyhow for ideological reasons. By the time they get it running smoothly there will be a Labour government and it will be scrapped once again for ideological purposes and we'll be on to the next fuck up.

There was a programme on radio 4 about UC the other night and someone pointed out that it had been designed to make poor people behave the way the government thought they should behave rather than being tailored to the way they do behave.

What I have an issue with is that one of the main reasons for UC is to top.up low wages. Now that may be a legitimate government policy to keep the minimum wage lower so that companies are more likely to invest/create jobs. But if that is the case then it needs to to be acknowledged and the demonisation of benefits claimants needs to stop. Instead we need to accept that we have a system of topping up and that it is not incumbent on the claimant to have less children or jump through hoops to make up for the government's desire to keep wages lower. And that topping up is done to a reasonable level so that people can live decent lives.

Alternatively they can raise the minimum wage and do something about housing costs. Anne if the don't want to do that then it should be in the government to take responsibility for that and not the people claiming.

Yes my ex left me for someone else. Was the government meant to tell him to come back or just leave me and my kids to starve because I 'couldn't keep my man'?

The government were told by the civil service that UC would be a fuck up

Iain Duncan Smith got out of dodge because he knew what a shit show it was going to be, and even then they forged ahead. He stood in parliament cheering and air-punching at one point, so he wanted it, he knew what he was doing, and even he couldn't stand by it in the end. That should have had a bigger effect than it did. More people should have taken notice then.

IMO this is only coming to light now because people who are working are being affected. It wouldn't have mattered that vulnerable and disabled people were starving because they "deserve it", for the crime of being vulnerable and/or disabled. But when working people are unable to pay their bills it becomes harder to justify. It is disgusting that this is the attitude of so many people in this country, both in parliament and the general public.

I can only hope for another mass shift in public opinion because this current trend of hate and apathy and judgement of others is just awful.

YY sheepsheep it is only then that The Sun changed their stance. Because they realized a lot of their readers were going to be/are affected

and print media are hemorraging readers even without this.

The media in this country (and not just print but they are especially loathsome) has far too much power, and has a lot to answer for.

Benefit Britain shows, Can't pay we take it away, Jeremy Kyle. It is like the fucking Hunger Games. Sitting in front of a screen getting pleasure from other people's misfortune. Watching as a system that was built to ensure they could never win strips them of everything, including their dignity. What they can't see is the people off screen who lost their lives.

Then it lumped the working poor in with them and now people are up in arms. It always reminds me of "First they came.." by Martin Niemöller. This started in 2010. It is nearly a decade later, and all that time people ignored what was being done to disabled and vulnerable people. There were posters back then on this site (myself included under other usernames) who pointed all this out, tried to turn opinions, tried to make people see how bad it was and what was yet to come. I had to step away at times it was just so soul destroying.

This high court ruling is a good step, but it won't stop all the working poor turning on each other because the media tells them that their neighbour has more than they do for less effort and they should report them, when really we are all going through the same stuff just trying to get by. Some days I hate humanity and that makes me sad.

sheepsheep it sounds like you were on the original frother threads

There was a poster called Huntycat who foresaw all this too.

Thank fuck Amber Rudd is in charge now and is making vital changes.

Changes that shouldn't have needed to be made in the first place (had UC been created by someone with an actual heart).

But it's progress at least.

Victory for women with money going to main care giver now.

Victory for tenants with landlords being paid directly.

Victory for the cut off with 2 children being scrapped before 2017 (they snuck that one in).

Now we need to keep fighting for more changes.

Too late for those who've already taken their lives due to UC

Ever since the 2011 Welfare Reform Bill was passed which involved billions of cuts it was obvious that the most vulnerable and working poor were going to be effected.

For some of my clients ( and I know it is a very specific group) UC does seem to be working out better. I deal with a lot of terminally ill people and they can get a decent amount of UC quickly even if still being paid full wages. Previously they would have had to wait until they dropped to ssp or their ssp ended altogether to get the help. I'm actually finding it easier as an adviser for this group of people because UC can be set up usually before they become too unwell, then it is in place and as their sick pay drops, their UC goes up and their rent gets paid. It saves them having to be making multiple benefit applications. for example for wtc, housing benefit and esa . I'm not defending it entirely as I know those being hardest hit are very vulnerable people often with mental health issues etc, but for my client group it isn't too bad , or doesn't appear to have been so far. We do seem to have problems getting the dwp to do home visits for people who are unable to get to the jobcentre. They have recently passed new legislation meaning that people who would have been entitled to the severe disability premium of esa can now no longer go onto UC. They do seem to be addressing some of the issues , although of course they should have thought it out properly in the first place.