Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Universal credit  →  Thread

DWP digital blog on the team behind building UC full service

 

stuart
Administrator

rightsnet editor

Send message

Total Posts: 277

Joined: 21 March 2016

Blog from Lara Sampson, product owner for the full service. Includes link to a youtube video exploring the ‘business unit’ behind the full service.

https://dwpdigital.blog.gov.uk/2017/09/11/building-the-universal-credit-full-service

      [ Edited: 13 Sep 2017 at 05:53 pm by stuart ]
SarahJBatty
forum member

Money Adviser, Thirteen, Middlesbrough

Send message

Total Posts: 298

Joined: 12 July 2012

Whilst I wouldnt want to disparage the author if this blog who is clearly fully aware of the scale of the challenge that she is managing, and appears passionate about her role, it is noticable that the three aims of DWP Digital do not include the most fundamental aim of a system or process -  to implement the law - and provice the legal entitlements which parliament has legislated.  Or indeedto provide social and financial security to people without an alternative source of income.

Interesting that UC is supposedly helping ‘people who are in vulnerable situations’ whereas it is obvious from the evidence emerging on the ground that UC is forcing people who would not otherwise be ‘vulnerable’ (although they may have a low income) into a vulnerable situation.  The problems are causing vulnerability rather than addressing it.

     
Peter Turville
forum member

Welfare Rights Worker, Oxford Community Work Agency

Send message

Total Posts: 984

Joined: 18 June 2010

SarahJBatty - 15 September 2017 10:50 AM

Whilst I wouldnt want to disparage the author if this blog who is clearly fully aware of the scale of the challenge that she is managing, and appears passionate about her role, it is noticable that the three aims of DWP Digital do not include the most fundamental aim of a system or process -  to implement the law - and provice the legal entitlements which parliament has legislated.  Or indeedto provide social and financial security to people without an alternative source of income.

Interesting that UC is supposedly helping ‘people who are in vulnerable situations’ whereas it is obvious from the evidence emerging on the ground that UC is forcing people who would not otherwise be ‘vulnerable’ (although they may have a low income) into a vulnerable situation.  The problems are causing vulnerability rather than addressing it.

Having been unfortunate enough to have experienced every change to the benefits system since the abolition of Supp. Ben. isn’t it always the case when the stated polictical / policy objective is compared to the reality. One might ask ‘will they ever (want to) learn’?

     
SarahJBatty
forum member

Money Adviser, Thirteen, Middlesbrough

Send message

Total Posts: 298

Joined: 12 July 2012

Still interesting to comment and analyse the language of these policy documents - highy significant that implementing the law is absent from the ‘main aims’ of the people in charge of ‘building’ the ‘product’ that is UC and helps explain why various issues seem to have simply escaped consideration entirely.  Of course the stated policy intent is never the same was the reality. ..... But I’m not tired of pointing it out and never will be.

     
ClairemHodgson
forum member

SC Law, Harrow

Send message

Total Posts: 603

Joined: 13 April 2016

perhaps this team needs to be refered to the just reported decision of judge wikely here http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2017/343.html  where he not only (for the nth time) criticises HMRC, but ALSO (again not for the first time) takes issue with their IT system in trenchant terms (for inability to retain/produce documents and the like).

     
Peter Turville
forum member

Welfare Rights Worker, Oxford Community Work Agency

Send message

Total Posts: 984

Joined: 18 June 2010

ClairemHodgson - 15 September 2017 01:49 PM

perhaps this team needs to be refered to the just reported decision of judge wikely here http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2017/343.html  where he not only (for the nth time) criticises HMRC, but ALSO (again not for the first time) takes issue with their IT system in trenchant terms (for inability to retain/produce documents and the like).

By co-incidence we have been having a discussion around the office about UC overpayment cases and how easy / difficult it might be to check the calculation of the overpayment(s) - given that all o/ps will be recoverable - from the information it might be possible to see on the claimants account and/or ability of DWP to provided a coherent history of an award / calculations etc. on MR/appeal. Given that he burden of proof regarding o/p calculation will still fall on the DWP.

This office discussion in the context of HMRC and increasing similar problems with DWP. I am currently working on an ESA £3.5K+ o/p case (5 bundles) where DWP argue misrepresentation but have provided no (and I mean no) evidence of a misrepresentation and all the evidence they have presented contradicts circumstantially that assersion!! I will be quoting Judge Wikely.

There really is a race to the bottom between DWP/HMRC (and some LA’s)!!!