Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
Average waiting time for first payment of universal credit…
DWP internal figures suggest that 80 per cent of claims were paid in full at the end of the first assessment period according to a written Commons answer yesterday by Damian Hinds ...
‘The latest internal data, for week ending 19 June, suggests some 80 per cent of cases were paid in full at the end of the first assessment period. For the 20 per cent of cases who were not paid in full we estimate around a third have not signed up to their claimant commitment so cannot be paid until they have. The other two thirds have an outstanding verification issue, such as providing bank statements, evidence of childcare costs, or proof of rent. Many of these claimants receive a part-payment where elements of the claim have been verified.’
The obvious question is: What proportion of the 80 per cent who were paid in full at the end of the first assessement period were single people without housing costs, child elements or additional components:
Given that this does not match the experience of social landlords, of which a very large number provided evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee, it is possible that a large percentage of the people who have experienced no problems are people with ‘standard allowance only’ type claims.
I agree with you Sarah, but I would also flag up that 1 in 5 claimants not getting paid, or 20% is a quite shocking figure in and of itself. It would be interesting to compare statistics for other benefits to see whether these are similar insofar as delays in initia payments are concerned.
For the 20% affected, that means no money for at least 10 weeks.
The figures appear not to take any account of people who aren’t paid until they have gone through a HRT, many of whom are waiting until the third or fourth assessment period to get their first payment.
Another really worrying stat for me, is the percentage of the 80% who (because they don’t get offered an advance payment), actually end up down the local food bank….....
This is now creating a whole new client group of food banks users….. that haven’t actually been seen up to now…..........those who are still waiting for their UC….....
This group, like the rest of the 80% of which they are a part, have done everything required of them, its just they are failed by the design of the system, and the culture within which it operates.
Im not wearing my Tooting popular front t shirt/beret today, but my view is simply a class one.
The folk affected by these “life changing” reforms simply dont matter at all to this government.
Simply not motivated to do anything about it, other than mealy mouthed responses.
They are getting away with it as they have succesfully demonised any and all benefit claimants (tell a working parent who reckon they are superior because they dont claim benefits) that child BENEFIT is a benefit and the responses are as predictable as usual.
Once full roll out occurs nationwide and starts to affect “hard working families” then politicians will
have to start to address these issues, as it will start to effect a huge amount of the electorate and their families.
Our area isnt full roll out so i dont have much UC experience, although i have had the training. My hometown however is full roll out, and 2 of my friends on UC have had nothing but problems (DWP not adding LCWRA add ons, getting housing costs completely wrong etc). These 2 dont even work. God help them if earnings need to be declared….
I agree with you Sarah, but I would also flag up that 1 in 5 claimants not getting paid, or 20% is a quite shocking figure in and of itself. It would be interesting to compare statistics for other benefits to see whether these are similar insofar as delays in initia payments are concerned.
For the 20% affected, that means no money for at least 10 weeks.
Just reread this properly and one third of 20% recieve no payment, other two thirds recieve part payment. Still worrying imo.
I agree with you Sarah, but I would also flag up that 1 in 5 claimants not getting paid, or 20% is a quite shocking figure in and of itself. It would be interesting to compare statistics for other benefits to see whether these are similar insofar as delays in initia payments are concerned.
For the 20% affected, that means no money for at least 10 weeks.
Absolutely, to be unable to administer a susbsistence benefit in this time period is extremely poor, and the impacts on people are very severe as we know.
I was not buying into the “80% = success” rhetoric .... mind you it shows how bad it is that my reaction was “it is no way as good as that!’
[ Edited: 20 Jul 2017 at 01:23 pm by SarahJBatty ]On the subject of UC success ‘metrics’ but a slightly different angle the ‘customer satisfaction’ one - this was an excellent point summary of the flaws of this appoach on twitter
Neil Couling Head of UC has replied on Twitter:
“making an estimate, not proper analysis. 2/3rds FS claimants have housing costs. So might be slightly lower than 80% but not marked c75%? We will publish proper stats when they have been through quality protocols, as the PQ answer said. Know for certain then”