Benefits and Blacking

[MtB]

5 hours ago, LadyG said:

I am astounded that people on low income are encouraged to borrow money,. When one is really strapped for cash, its pretty much impossible to think about re paying it, never mind with interest. I'm so glad I managed nearly all my life to avoid the beaurocracy.

I know it was years ago, but once went in to a Labour Exchange (Orange Banner), where I was asked if I would retrain as a Copy Typist, presumanly as they had no vacancies for someone with my degree. I have no aptitude for typing or shorthand, and when questioned it seemed there was no shortage of Copy Typists, what was that all about?

 

It was about getting you off their books as a claimant and into training of some sort (doesn't matter what), so some sort of target can be met by the Labour Exchange office. Obviously. 

 

 

P.S. you have a degree?! What in?

 

 

 

 

[LadyG]

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

It was about getting you off their books as a claimant and into training of some sort (doesn't matter what), so some sort of target can be met by the Labour Exchange office. Obviously. 

 

 

P.S. you have a degree?! What in?

 

 

 

 

Well, at the time it was in Dairying, but I've topped it up since.

[Alan de Enfield]

14 hours ago, LadyG said:

Well, at the time it was in Dairying, but I've topped it up since.

 

The cream ?

 

(Always float to the top (as does scum)

[nbfiresprite]

 

On 03/05/2025 at 15:48, Laurie Booth said:

Why not have the housing benefit paid directly to the landlord? 

The universal credit (UC) housing element is usually paid to the claimant. Then it's the claimant responsibility to pay their landlord the full rent.

If the housing element is less than the rent, the claimant has to cover the shortfall. The reasoning behind this, is to get the claimant used to budgeting their monthy payment as they would an wage payment. Many claimants prefer to have the rent paid direct to them as it hides the fact that they are claiming housing from their landlord. Even today many housing ads from Bedsits to Houses often have 'No DSS, DHSS or DWP' in the ad.  

 

In some cases, Universal Credit (UC) can be paid directly to the landlord, rather than being paid to the tenant. This is known as an Alternative Payment Arrangement (APA) or a Managed Payment to Landlord (MPTL). The landlord can ask to be paid direct if the claimant owes at least 2 or more months rent.

[Laurie Booth]

2 hours ago, nbfiresprite said:

 

The universal credit (UC) housing element is usually paid to the claimant. Then it's the claimant responsibility to pay their landlord the full rent.

If the housing element is less than the rent, the claimant has to cover the shortfall. The reasoning behind this, is to get the claimant used to budgeting their monthy payment as they would an wage payment. Many claimants prefer to have the rent paid direct to them as it hides the fact that they are claiming housing from their landlord. Even today many housing ads from Bedsits to Houses often have 'No DSS, DHSS or DWP' in the ad.  

 

In some cases, Universal Credit (UC) can be paid directly to the landlord, rather than being paid to the tenant. This is known as an Alternative Payment Arrangement (APA) or a Managed Payment to Landlord (MPTL). The landlord can ask to be paid direct if the claimant owes at least 2 or more months rent.

The reason some landlords do not want dss is due to insurance problems.

[nbfiresprite]

themselvesribunal

21 hours ago, MtB said:

 

It was about getting you off their books as a claimant and into training of some sort (doesn't matter what), so some sort of target can be met by the Labour Exchange office. Obviously. 

 

Still the case now with Job (Joke) Centre Plus. Most Job coaches are clueless and only interested in meeting targets and winning the weekly cream bun for most sanctions referred and number of claims closed or suspended.

 

 

Some of you know that sometime ago I became my autistic nephew appointed court of protection representative after the strain of dealing with the DWP resulted in my sister, his mother have a mental breakdown. Since then I have had the misforture to have dealings with that den of sanction happy, power hungry bunch of self servicing spivs and chancers known as the DWP. 

 

My last meeting with the DWP, required my nephew to attend the meeting. Which he did with his two full time carers. Now my nephew has full autism spectrum disorder (ASD), is deaf in one ear and mute. He also has a mental age of a seven or eight year (35 years old) and 6'6" tall, built like a brick outhouse hence a very strong and requires two carers to handle him when upset.

 

At meeting, it was quite clear that the DWP employee had not read the background notes regarding his condition and that all questions should be directed to me as his  representative. From the start this person was looking for trouble and a reason to stop the claim. When asking questions they directed them at my nephew, who did not understand the questions. When I answered, they told me to be quite or they have me removed from the building as my nephew was required to answer the questions. Being mute this was not possable even if he did understand the question.

 

He was getting upset from the questioning, at which point I demanded to speak to their manager. Instead they called security claiming I threaten them. Security then called the police when his two carers back me up on what did happen. The police were not happy being called in for no good reason. Their view asking to speak to a manager concerning a employee action is not considered threatening behavior. It's a normal and expected step in addressing a issue. As the police were called, a manager had to be produced as the police themselves wanted to have a word or two concerning wasting police time. As for the interview, the manager canceled it on the spot, so it could be arranged for another day.

 

A few days later I had a letter telling me that the claim had been suspended for failing to attend the interview. Seems this is a common trick to remove an event from the records. I had to go through the full appeal process which took months, both carers had reported their concerns about what happen at the interview to social services as did the two Police officers who made a report about the callout. These two reports were of great help at the tribunal stage (These tribunals are part of the court system and are separate from the DWP). The DWP decision maker at the Mandatory Reconsideration stage, had sided with the DWP employee as it happens with most cases at this stage.

 

The tribunal quickly ruled in my nephew favour when presented with the true facts of what happen on the day. Credit to one of the judges who was able to use Makaton, a simplified version of British Sign Language to ask my nephew a few simple questions about the day in question. I had brought him along to the tribunal for the judges to see for themselves my nephew as part of the case I was presenting. He was awarded full back payments to his claim as well as an additional compensatory award, plus my costs. The DWP was heavily criticized by the tribunal judges for their actions in this case.

 

my nephew was fortunately to have family and friends to help out with his living costs while we waited through the months for his case to reach the tribunal and for my second cousins checking the legal paperwork therefore saving the cost of a solicitor as both being legal professionals.

 

For many this is not the case and some individuals have died before their scheduled DWP tribunal date, with causes including natural death, suicide, and starvation, potentially due to delays or issues within the benefits system.

 

Examples 

• Errol Graham:

  A disabled man, who starved to death after his benefits were wrongly stopped, highlighting the DWP's failure to safeguard vulnerable individuals. Disability Rights UK reported that his body was found by bailiffs who were sent to evict him because he had not paid his rent for seven months. The DWP was found to have failed to take reasonable steps to obtain evidence that his health had improved before removing his only source of income, according to the report. https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/2020/january/disabled-man-starved-death-after-dwp-wrongly-stopped-his-benefits

   

  Kristie Hunt:

  A woman who took her own life after being incorrectly told she owed money to the DWP, showcasing the potential impact of DWP errors on mental health. The BBC reported that the coroner concluded that the problems she faced with the DWP had "likely impacted adversely on Kristie Ann Hunt's state of mind and likely contributed to her actions" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20nrv02vz1o

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Laurie Booth said:

The reason some landlords do not want dss is due to insurance problems.

That is the case with some landlords, but others who read the Daily Mail or Express have a very negative on people who claim benefits.

[Ianws]

Thank for sharing that @nbfiresprite it was obviously an unnecessarily horrendous situation for all of you. Thankfully, your nephew has a good support network and had a decent panel. I doubt many judges are able to use Makaton, or have an understanding of your nephew and his life.

 

Re. Benefits, training schemes etc. I'm very proud of my late father. He used to be a manager in the rubber industty but ended up in the civil service around 1980 when things got tough in manufacturingat. He was in the frequently renamed manpower services commission. I can't remember if it was YOP or YTS at the time but it was the scheme for getting young people into work with training. I'm proud of my father's stance that he wouldn't accept people using it as an opportunity for very cheap labour with no training, and wouldn't sign that off it it was happening, which was very frequent.