Universal Credit

Author
Discussion

SantaBarbara

3,244 posts

108 months

Thursday 19th October 2017
quotequote all
TooMany2cvs said:
Seems like a good reason to replace multiple individual benefits with one single, unified one.
However the costs may be greater than the potential benefits.

Eric Mc

122,010 posts

265 months

Thursday 19th October 2017
quotequote all
JagLover said:
Sorry the "bulk of people"?

These are benefits claimed for a large part by those in low paid work. Unless the check out girls, restaurant staff and cleaners you meet on a day to day basis mostly appear to be suffering from mental health issues then I would suggest this is a gross exaggeration.
You would be surprised.

austinsmirk

5,597 posts

123 months

Thursday 19th October 2017
quotequote all
I'm especially interested in this: I work in social housing.

we're expecting to go millions into debt when it kicks in.

combined with:

bedroom tax- no one pays it and discretionary payments will fade out

under 35's rules for HB

under 21's rules for HB

further roll out's of the benefits cap.

I get the idea to change the system but: we've built a culture of chucking free money at people with no responsibility. Everyone covers yr rent, c. tax. yr money drops into yr hand and you spend it. when the money tree runs out, pop to the food bank. but keep yr full sky tv subscription going of course and yr holiday's abroad each year.

Trust me after 27 years in this sector- joe public is completely incapable of managing their free money and their lives. Society will edge towards collapse for many. It's ill thought out.


It will save billions though- any mistake on the on line form or failure to provide info, stops the claim. the claim isn't backdated either: it resets.

so crazy alcoholic Kayden Mckenzie and his drug filled partner, Krystelle with their multiple offspring don't eventually get some massive lump sum paid- they'll probably only get the immediate amount due.

utter chaos.

we're edging right now to only touching older people for accomm (eg over 35) and those in work. Every day we contact people to offer accommodation and reject dozen's as they simply cannot prove right to rent (ID) or evidence any sort of income.

honestly, get to the bottom of society and its a proper mess.

maybe rent/ctax paid by govt to council direct and vouchers for food and utilities is the way forward. give it long enough it could happen.

Anyway, I'll change my view when I don't go into a house with a 60" plasma and full sky package. all paid for by universal credit. Whatever happened to the deserving poor eh ?



TooMany2cvs

29,008 posts

126 months

Thursday 19th October 2017
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Eric Mc said:
I complete forms for a living, mostly tax related and mostly, these days, on line.

A couple of years ago my wife and I were assisting her brother (who had mental health issues) in completing various benefit application forms - which he was incapable of completing himself. One form was 45 pages long - with on average six to eight "boxes" on each page - that is around 300 data points being requested on each application!!!!
Seems like a good reason to replace multiple individual benefits with one single, unified one.
He was only making a claim for one benefit.
Yet the people being referred to are usually claiming for several of the benefits which UC is replacing - Housing Benefit, Child Tax Credit, Income Support, Working Tax Credit, Income-based Job Seeker's Allowance, Income-based Employment and Support Allowance. There's a lot of crossover between those - and, as has been said - those are mostly targetted at those working but on low incomes. Not those who are incapable of work.

Eric Mc said:
Don't for a second think that merging multiple benefits into one will make the application process any easier. All the stories I have heard indicate to me the the application process is no easier. They still want the same data. In fact, they will almost definitely want even more.
Obviously, they won't want LESS information - but the information will only be needed ONCE...

Eric Mc

122,010 posts

265 months

Thursday 19th October 2017
quotequote all
TooMany2cvs said:
Obviously, they won't want LESS information - but the information will only be needed ONCE...
As evidenced by my example with the 45 page form - once is more than enough.

kowalski655

14,639 posts

143 months

Thursday 19th October 2017
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
As evidenced by my example with the 45 page form - once is more than enough.
to be fair,DLA/PIP covers every possible illness,from AIDS to something beginning with Z,and a lot isnt applicable,eg on mobility, people with 1 leg but who are compus mentis fill in the physical walking bit but can ignore several pages of "needing guidance/supervision", and the mentally ill fill in that part but ignore "how far can you walk",same with personal care etc,its rare to fill in ALL sections

drainbrain

5,637 posts

111 months

Thursday 19th October 2017
quotequote all
austinsmirk said:
Unhappy stuff
You need a holiday Austin. It's wearing you down a bit.

From a Housing Benefit perspective once you get the hang of it (which doesn't take long) you'll find it's ok. Tiny bit better for the landlord in some ways.


Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

158 months

Thursday 19th October 2017
quotequote all
austinsmirk said:
maybe rent/ctax paid by govt to council direct and vouchers for food and utilities is the way forward. give it long enough it could happen.
Leaving aside the handwringing over those getting free stuff being 'stigmatised' over vouchers, you just know that £10 vouchers will be swapped for £5 cash to buy beer & fags. They'll then whinge about not being able to feed themselves/their families on the amount of free money given.

Eric Mc

122,010 posts

265 months

Thursday 19th October 2017
quotequote all
kowalski655 said:
Eric Mc said:
As evidenced by my example with the 45 page form - once is more than enough.
to be fair,DLA/PIP covers every possible illness,from AIDS to something beginning with Z,and a lot isnt applicable,eg on mobility, people with 1 leg but who are compus mentis fill in the physical walking bit but can ignore several pages of "needing guidance/supervision", and the mentally ill fill in that part but ignore "how far can you walk",same with personal care etc,its rare to fill in ALL sections
The trick with filling in large complex forms is knowing what bits you can ignore. Not everybody is good at that and many people are fearful about what might happen if they fail to complete a section.

My brother in law freaked when he saw the form and in the end it was my wife and me who had to fill it in for him.

Anyway, he's no longer a burden on honest taxpayers because he did the sensible thing and died.

Mark Benson

7,514 posts

269 months

Thursday 19th October 2017
quotequote all
Scotty2 said:
As HMHB released in 1985
Back in the DHSS...
Was it really that long ago.

Now you've made me feel old......

drainbrain

5,637 posts

111 months

Thursday 19th October 2017
quotequote all
kowalski655 said:
Eric Mc said:
As evidenced by my example with the 45 page form - once is more than enough.
to be fair,DLA/PIP covers every possible illness,from AIDS to something beginning with Z,and a lot isnt applicable,eg on mobility, people with 1 leg but who are compus mentis fill in the physical walking bit but can ignore several pages of "needing guidance/supervision", and the mentally ill fill in that part but ignore "how far can you walk",same with personal care etc,its rare to fill in ALL sections
There are people who can't fill in the DLA/PIP form. Some don't really even know there is a form or a system or even their own names. They get help with it.

Here's my experience:

Discharged from hospital.

Within a few days a lady appears at the house unannounced bearing a huge booklet which needs filled in. I sit there answering when asked but most of the time is spent watching her ripping through the form much of which is "n/a".

Half an hour later lady vanishes.

Some weeks (8?) later money materialises in account.

Didn't seem to be any problem at all.

Sticks.

8,748 posts

251 months

Thursday 19th October 2017
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Indeed it was - and, as you say, has not been abolished because of Universal Credit.

All Universal Credit does is merge what were referred to as "Tax Credits". Tax Credits were invented by one Gordon Brown ostensibly to replace old style Tax Allowances and were an additional set of "claims" over and above the existing Benefits system.

The Benefits System still exists as a stand alone entity - with its own separate bureaucracy.
Iirc in the main it replaced Family Credit, formerly Family Income Supplement.

The main purpose of these benefits was to enable people to work who might not otherwise be able to afford to, and I suspect DWP has lost sight of that in the implementation of UC.

Eric Mc said:
The trick with filling in large complex forms is knowing what bits you can ignore. Not everybody is good at that and many people are fearful about what might happen if they fail to complete a section.

My brother in law freaked when he saw the form and in the end it was my wife and me who had to fill it in for him.

Anyway, he's no longer a burden on honest taxpayers because he did the sensible thing and died.
Indeed it always was. I had to appeal in 2000, a process which took 9 months.

The whole shift away from interviews to forms @ 1980s was about saving money. The problem is that as well as some groups not getting the right advice to access what they're entitled to, there's also more scope for abuse. But it's cheaper to administer.

Very sorry about your brother.

Btw in your potted history of DHSS you missed that Dep't Emply't used to administer Unemployment Benefit, latterly via the Employment Serice. Pre Thatcher you got an Earnings Related Supplement, reflecting your extra NI cont's as well as non-means tested benefits for spouse and children.

Eric Mc

122,010 posts

265 months

Thursday 19th October 2017
quotequote all
drainbrain said:
There are people who can't fill in the DLA/PIP form. Some don't really even know there is a form or a system or even their own names. They get help with it.

Here's my experience:

Discharged from hospital.

Within a few days a lady appears at the house unannounced bearing a huge booklet which needs filled in. I sit there answering when asked but most of the time is spent watching her ripping through the form much of which is "n/a".

Half an hour later lady vanishes.

Some weeks (8?) later money materialises in account.

Didn't seem to be any problem at all.
Lucky you. I would guess that this service isn't available all of the time for everyone - or even exists at the moment.

TooMany2cvs

29,008 posts

126 months

Thursday 19th October 2017
quotequote all
Sticks. said:
All Universal Credit does is merge what were referred to as "Tax Credits". Tax Credits were invented by one Gordon Brown ostensibly to replace old style Tax Allowances and were an additional set of "claims" over and above the existing Benefits system.
Iirc in the main it replaced Family Credit, formerly Family Income Supplement.

The main purpose of these benefits was to enable people to work who might not otherwise be able to afford to, and I suspect DWP has lost sight of that in the implementation of UC.
AIUI, the exact opposite - R4 yesterday had somebody describing what I suspect is a fairly typical scenario. Single mother, two kids, working 16hrs/wk minimum wage. If she worked one more hour per week, she'd keep 4p in the pound on the current system. On UC, she'd keep 36p (IIRC).

That HAS to be an improvement, surely?

Eric Mc

122,010 posts

265 months

Thursday 19th October 2017
quotequote all
Sticks. said:
Indeed it always was. I had to appeal in 2000, a process which took 9 months.

The whole shift away from interviews to forms @ 1980s was about saving money. The problem is that as well as some groups not getting the right advice to access what they're entitled to, there's also more scope for abuse. But it's cheaper to administer.

Very sorry about your brother.

Btw in your potted history of DHSS you missed that Dep't Emply't used to administer Unemployment Benefit, latterly via the Employment Serice. Pre Thatcher you got an Earnings Related Supplement, reflecting your extra NI cont's as well as non-means tested benefits for spouse and children.
I came to the UK in 1986 so didn't come across the older systems directly.

Prior to that, the only knowledge I had about Unemployment Benefit in the UK was from the pop group UB40.

kowalski655

14,639 posts

143 months

Thursday 19th October 2017
quotequote all
drainbrain said:
kowalski655 said:
Eric Mc said:
As evidenced by my example with the 45 page form - once is more than enough.
to be fair,DLA/PIP covers every possible illness,from AIDS to something beginning with Z,and a lot isnt applicable,eg on mobility, people with 1 leg but who are compus mentis fill in the physical walking bit but can ignore several pages of "needing guidance/supervision", and the mentally ill fill in that part but ignore "how far can you walk",same with personal care etc,its rare to fill in ALL sections
There are people who can't fill in the DLA/PIP form. Some don't really even know there is a form or a system or even their own names. They get help with it.

Here's my experience:
Discharged from hospital.
Within a few days a lady appears at the house unannounced bearing a huge booklet which needs filled in. I sit there answering when asked but most of the time is spent watching her ripping through the form much of which is "n/a".
Half an hour later lady vanishes.
Some weeks (8?) later money materialises in account.
Didn't seem to be any problem at all.
Thats because your lady knew what to put(and just as importantly,what NOT to put) People who struggle through or are too proud wont write on the form that they need help to wipe their arse, or dont think they have a problem when the voices tell them to kill,so its not on the form,and the DWP staff dont have the time or budget to investigate fully,and that doesnt even include the appalling medical assesments

Eric Mc

122,010 posts

265 months

Thursday 19th October 2017
quotequote all
Don't get me started on the medical assessments. My brother in law was assessed twice in 12 months that he was fit for work. Within six months of the second one he was dead.

SantaBarbara

3,244 posts

108 months

Thursday 19th October 2017
quotequote all
kowalski655 said:
Thats because your lady knew what to put(and just as importantly,what NOT to put) People who struggle through or are too proud wont write on the form that they need help to wipe their arse, or dont think they have a problem when the voices tell them to kill,so its not on the form,and the DWP staff dont have the time or budget to investigate fully,and that doesnt even include the appalling medical assesments
Actually some of the ATOS medical staff were considerably better than the DWP clerical staff.

DWP nowadays are less understanding than they used to be twenty years ago.

Sticks.

8,748 posts

251 months

Thursday 19th October 2017
quotequote all
TooMany2cvs said:
AIUI, the exact opposite - R4 yesterday had somebody describing what I suspect is a fairly typical scenario. Single mother, two kids, working 16hrs/wk minimum wage. If she worked one more hour per week, she'd keep 4p in the pound on the current system. On UC, she'd keep 36p (IIRC).

That HAS to be an improvement, surely?
Agreed, but my point was about implementation/delivery. For many people benefits need to be more or less immediate, particularly when returning to work. From what I've read (happy to be corrected) UC doesn't adequately address that need.

drainbrain

5,637 posts

111 months

Thursday 19th October 2017
quotequote all
kowalski655 said:
That's because your lady knew what to put(and just as importantly, what NOT to put).
Yes that's right. Knowing HOW to fill in the form is vital and probably a lot trickier than it sounds. Bit like not knowing which menu choice to make when none of the options fit your exact requirement.

Easily resolved by having an efficient and effective helpline which is one of the most important improvements UC needs to make.