× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Conditionality and sanctions  →  Thread

6.9% of UC claimants sanctioned and 71% of those just for missing WFI

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 3537

Joined: 14 March 2014

New statistics from DWP show that while JSA and ESA rates of sanction are decreasing, UC sanctions are going up - increase from 3.4% to 6.9% in last quarter!!

The DWP’s explanation for the high percentage sanctioned for missing WFIs is -

A major difference between sanctions policy for UC compared to JSA is that under UC, where a claimant fails to attend a Work Coach meeting they can be sanctioned. Under JSA, claimants would receive a sanction, or have their claim terminated if they did not make contact within 5 working days of their failure. This is not appropriate for UC as claimants may be in receipt of other parts of UC, such as housing and child care, which would not be subject to a sanction and so they would remain on benefit.

(page 4 of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/658948/universal-credit-sanctions-statistics-background-information-and-methodology.pdf)

[ Edited: 15 Nov 2017 at 11:03 am by Daphne ]
HB Anorak
forum member

Benefits consultant/trainer - hbanorak.co.uk, East London

Send message

Total Posts: 2895

Joined: 12 March 2013

Well shall I be the first to state the obvious: rent and child allowances wouldn’t be sanctioned on JSA either.  That’s no kind of excuse - pathetic attempt to hoodwink, didn’t they realise how quickly they would be rumbled?

SarahJBatty
forum member

Money Adviser, Thirteen, Middlesbrough

Send message

Total Posts: 345

Joined: 12 July 2012

And furthermore, surely this just serves to highlight that the previous system, where a combination of sanctions and disallowances were used as a complex punitive regime designed to disentitle people from financial support, was UNDER represented in the pure ‘sanctions’ statistics??

 

GWRS adviser
forum member

Welfare Rights Service, Greenwich Council, London

Send message

Total Posts: 211

Joined: 8 August 2012

But I thought that UC sanctions would be for a value equal to the personal allowance rather than only affecting the personal allowance itself?  In that case UC sanctions could potentially affect other elements, such as the housing element.

Have I got the wrong end of the stick here?

Daphne
Administrator

rightsnet writer / editor

Send message

Total Posts: 3537

Joined: 14 March 2014

I see it the same as you Owen - the UC award isn’t split into amounts for housing/children etc - you just get sanctioned an amount equivalent to personal allowance - and note that if you’re a jobseeker it’s still a sanction of 100% of your standard allowance even if only for missing WFI

Paul_Treloar_AgeUK
forum member

Information and advice resources - Age UK

Send message

Total Posts: 3196

Joined: 7 January 2016

No you haven’t Owen, politicians speak with forked tongue.

GWRS adviser
forum member

Welfare Rights Service, Greenwich Council, London

Send message

Total Posts: 211

Joined: 8 August 2012

Glad to hear that (though I wish I was wrong!). 

Yes but this is a publication by the department’s stats team!  Surely they should be getting these things correct? (though of course they’d be likely to present any stats in a way that puts them in the best possible light)

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

Complain to the NSO?

GWRS adviser
forum member

Welfare Rights Service, Greenwich Council, London

Send message

Total Posts: 211

Joined: 8 August 2012

I contacted the department and the UK Statistics Authority about this.  DWP have responded as follows:

Thank you for e-mail. We have looked at the statement in the document you mention below and although we believe it is accurate we accept that it could have been clearer. We have now expanded the explanation to clarify. The statement now reads

“A major difference between sanctions policy for UC compared to JSA is that under UC, where a claimant fails to attend a Work Coach meeting they can be sanctioned. Under JSA, claimants would receive a sanction, or have their claim terminated if they did not make contact within 5 working days of their failure. This is not appropriate for UC as claimants may be in receipt of other parts of UC, such as housing and child care, which would not be subject to a sanction and so they would remain on benefit. A sanction reduces a claimant’s Universal Credit award by an amount never more than their standard allowance element entitlement only. However, depending on the claimant’s circumstances, such as other deductions, the overall Universal Credit payment could be reduced to nil.”.

The statement itself is not intended to be explanation of the trends or the precise reason why there are differences between Universal Credit (UC) and legacy benefits. It is meant to be explanation of the policy differences that users should be aware if they do make comparisons between the two.

Benny Fitzpatrick
forum member

Welfare Rights Officer, Southway Housing Trust, Manchester

Send message

Total Posts: 627

Joined: 2 June 2015

I fail to see how this draconian use of sanctions can possibly be “helping record numbers of people into work and keeping them in work for longer”.

What happened to the “yellow card” idea which was being discussed not long ago. The current approach appears to still be to sanction first, ask the relevant questions (much) later. (I.E. at tribunal stage)

Mike Hughes
forum member

Senior welfare rights officer - Salford City Council Welfare Rights Service

Send message

Total Posts: 3138

Joined: 17 June 2010

Near zero evidence supporting sanctions as a thing which propels people into work. Plenty on this at https://gmwrag.wordpress.com/2017/07/28/gmwrag-at-plp-conference-north-on-benefit-sanctions-and-the-rule-of-law/