Hi

Client been told that she cannot get a crisis loan as she has not made a claim for benefit. She cannot make a claim for IS (due to ill health) until she has had a work focused interview. She cannot get an interview appointment until Monday. (first contact was Thursday)

She was on JSA but this was stopped as she missed an appt at Job Centre. She now has a medical certificate to claim IS on grounds of ill health. She lives in a Pathways pilot area and so has to have a work focused interview before they will accept her claim. (I am not sure that is correct, but thats another problem).

The reason given is that if there is no benefit and no other income, they will not know how the loan will be repaid. I asked them how she was meant to survive with no income and no benefit, but got no answer.

Anyone found an answer to this circle.

Thanks

Hi.

A client had similar problems - was told she had to be in receipt of benefit to claim a crisis loan.

Application was finally processed when they couldn't produce the regs to back this up!

You can apply for a crisis loan if:
you are aged 16 or over and
you have insufficient resources to meet immediate short term needs of yourself and/or your family
you are not an excluded person (resident in a care home, prisoner, member of or maintained by a religious order, or aged under 60 and in full-time relevant education and not entitled to ibJSA)
(from Citizens Advice information system)

Hope this helps. Your client should have their application processed and request a written decision.

oh - forgot to say - repayment for my client was agreed to be made at the JobCentre on a fortnightly basis, despite not being in receipt of benefit (only tax credits).

Thanks for that

Job Centre arguement was about the repayment. They agreed that you dont have to be on benefit to get a crisis loan, but that they have to know how it will be repaid. As she has no income at the moment, she cannot say how she will repay it. I have suggested she make a claim anyway and ask for a written decision. Not sure how I can help her through this weekend though.

Late in the day now but....

I woudl suggets two ways forward:

1. argue that CL should have treated the appiontment for the interview in the same way that they treat a claim being made: after all, just because a claim is made there is no guarantee of a payment. If attending an interview is necissary, then applying for an interview should suffice as evidence of intention to claim - which is all an actual claim is after all. If you see what I mean.

I know its easy to believe your own arguments, but I think the SFI might go for that one! Of course, difficulty is getting to the SFI with a CL review before events have overtaken you. In future, as I expect this will come up again, what about attempting a JR? Its got to be done one day.

2. Policy work with the Pathway people, explaining why emergency appiontments are going to be needed in similar cases in future.

Few months since this posting started but some similarities. My client's IS stopped due to LTAHAW allegations - no written decision as yet - they told client she'd get it in due course! Client only income now CHB. Once again the SFO takes it upon herself to verbally advise client no CL award as no means of repayment and also because Fraud have stated categorically they are living together so no possibility of IS. SFO says if client makes new IS claim with so called partner then she can get CL - we have advised client against this but to reclaim IS in own right.
It took 3 calls from us before they actually accepted CL applic which was of course refused - I've submitted an applic for review yesterday and will take to IRS if refused. Furthermore IS appeal now lodged even without written decision. How do we get over this type of obstacle ?

Is it not possible in your case to make a joint claim as partners 'without prejudice', ie making it clear that the claim is made under duress? This should not affect a future appeal hearing against LTAHW, if the circumstances in which the new claim has been made are explained.

Jim

I'd considered it and have tried to reach client earlier to discuss. Thanks Jim.

Sue, your client's benefit shouldn't be withdrawn because of living together allegations. a L/T interview should be carried out, and a referral of the evidence should be made to the decision-maker. Fraud cannot make the decision, and if you have evidence that they have interfered with the decision-maker's decision-making, you have evidence of a serious breach of policy, which deliberately separates the invstigative powers from the decision-making powers. i usually ask to see the evidence put to the decision-maker, and ask awkward questions about breaching the separation of powers. they get very twitchy at this, and it is invariably denied. one of these days...

Fraud shouldn't suspend benefit during 'protracted investigations', ie impose an unauthorised administrative penalty of their own design. a benefit suspension entails the issue of a suspension notice which specifies what information or evidence the claimant is required to provide within one month. in the case of a question of living together, that means answering the L/T questions, ie an L/T interview which must be referred to a D/M... and it's reasonable to expect them to arrange that asap, if they try a benefit suspension. in my experience they don't, they just withdraw the benefit. they especially like getting the claimant to 'voluntarily' withdraw their claim, because no decision is needed then. we all know there is a big difference in what they should and shouldn't do, and what they actually do.

the problem with a joint claim, 'under duress' is that this can feel so 'wrong' in some cases, that the people involved cannot bring themselves to make one. it occurs to me that there must be an argument for benefit to be paid pending an appeal in L\T cases. unfortunately, i'm a bear of little brain tonight... : ) in the case of an alleged couple which would qualify for IS as a couple, at least administrative payments split 50/50 could be made on separate claims pending the appeal, without an 'under duress' joint claim.

of course, an adverse L/T decision shouldn't be given unless the DM is satisfied by evidence that on the balance of REALISTIC probabilities ( realistic as in relating to reality not fantasy or imagination or benefit savings targets), the couple live together as husband and wife. and if there were more of those, and less of the other kind, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

sometimes i have horrible nightmares that i'll have to go back to the DWP and wag my finger...

what's to be done about it? it's not just fraud. there are huge issues around claiming. crisis loans are really bad - 'you won't get anything so you can't claim' and i've heard of occassions when JSA and HB claim forms were ripped up and dropped in the bin because 'you can't claim'.

has anybody round here got time to organize a union? a database? an intranet? campaign? lobby? impeach somebody? put in a funding bid to compile highly valuable statistics on social injustice and exclusion with added training value, should anybody give a damn? : )

obviously, i'm concentrating on domestic issues to take my mind off iraq... and... <wink>

i'd mop the toilets to get out of doing a benefit check : )

jan

Just to put my two pennies worth in. In these cases:

1) Demand an application - they can't refuse.

2) Ask for a written decision - they can't refuse they are obliged by law ( and I'll bet your bottom dollar they won't put Direction 22 down as the reason for refusal - unless they are really stupid ).

3) Fax an immediate reply asking for a review and request an urgent decision, from the reviewing officer, as you would like to take this to the Inspectors

4) Fax a request back to the SF dept asking for an Independant review.
The IRS are just waiting to jump on these dodgy SFO's.

You may like to know that my client was told she couldn't make a C/L application due to the fact she was not in receipt of benefits and that she must put a claim in first to IS.
I insisted on the right to make an application. After much wingeing they collapsed and agreed. I spoke with an SFO who tried to use Direction 22, pah pathetic, but he gave a nil award under direction 21 (eh???). Requested the decision in writing by fax. Received the nil decision, ho, ho, no mention of any directions or any reason why nil decision given.

Faxed review letter to SF. Reviewing officer telephoned me and aked what my plans were - informed her that I just wanted a review and I needed the decision quickly, as I then would be requesting an independant review. RO immediately asked how much my client needed and then awarded 30% more.

The whole process took 2.5 hours from start to finish.
I spoke to the IRS business team who have informed me that they are very quick these days when it comes conducting independant reviews for C/L's and usually they can make a decision within 24 hours of the initial telephone application for a Crisis Loan.

Sorry to keep boring you but I feel I must mention that there may be a software problem on the SF computers that is causing this problem to happen. I don't know for sure but it would seem from the experiences I have had, that when an application is first made there is a need to have the clients benefit details on their system in order to go any further.
This could raise a serious point - is the software looking for the likelihood of repayment before even allowing an application. I hope not because as we all know decision on the likelihood of repayment should come at the end of an application not at the beginning.

These issues really need to be addressed - does anyone know of a local Social Fund forum or anything?

Cheers
Ryan

The Social Fund Commissioner in his the latest annual report has again
highlighted persistent poor practices by the DWP with respect to crisis loan applications -
see 16 September 2004 rightsnet news story Claiming crisis loans by telephone.

Not sure if making complaints direct to the Independent Review Service may be worth considering?

In the report,the Social Fund Commissioner tells the DWP they must take steps 'to ensure that these practices are eliminated and provide suitable assurance that this has happened.' and that 'we analyse the complaints we receive ...to identify learning points and areas for improvement.'

Many thanks for all your responses. Still not resolved yet but this is to do with the client........
Sue