Forum Home → Discussion → Access to justice and advice sector issues → Thread
Jobcentres ‘tricking’ people out of benefits to cut costs, says whistleblower
Quite a disturbing article in the Guardian this weekend, about an issue that has long been suspected to be an underlying policy intention but often impossible to pin down. It can’t be very fulfilling for JCP staff, one would imagine, being tasked with such a negative outlook to welfare benefit recipients, let alone the damage and distress caused to the people who face unwarranted sanctions.
Rising numbers of vulnerable jobseekers are being tricked into losing benefits amid growing pressure to meet welfare targets, a Jobcentre Plus adviser has told the Guardian.
A whistleblower said staff at his jobcentre were given targets of three people a week to refer for sanctions, where benefits are removed for up to six months. He said it was part of a “culture change” since last summer that had led to competition between advisers, teams and regional offices.
“Suddenly you’re not helping somebody into sustainable employment, which is what you’re employed to do,” he said. “You’re looking for ways to trick your customers into ‘not looking for work’. You come up with many ways. I’ve seen dyslexic customers given written job searches, and when they don’t produce them – what a surprise – they’re sanctioned. The only target that anyone seems to care about is stopping people’s money.
“‘Saving the public purse’ is the catchphrase that is used in our office … It is drummed home all the time – you’re saving the public purse. Feel good about stopping someone’s money, you’ve just saved your own pocket. Its a joke.”
‘The DWP said: “To say that we are targeting vulnerable people is ridiculous. We only sanction people if they do not adhere to their agreement. We are massively expanding the help and support that jobseekers will receive to ensure that they get the right help and support to get into work. If someone is incapable of work, they will continue to receive unconditional support.”’
The first part of the statement is disgracefully disingenuous. Try NOT agreeing to an agreement that JC+ put in front of you and see what happens. By definition, those who are most vulnerable are the least able to hold their ground when dealing with “authority”. The last sentence of the DWP’s statement is simply laughable. I’d call it dishonest. Presumably, the DWP is unaware of the debacle that is ESA?
NB: The above is a copy of my response to a thread on hbinfo.
Its OK its not a ‘target’ but a ‘benchmark.’
See the below from Hansard.
“....To help ensure the associated sanctions regime is applied efficiently, effectively and consistently across Districts, Jobcentre Plus has established the following internal benchmarks:
A minimum of 6% of the JSA live load is referred to Decision Makers to consider areas of doubt arising from entitlement and sanctions, and
At least 50% of these referrals result in decisions adverse to the customer
These are benchmarks and not targets. There is no ‘right level’ of referrals. The intention is that, if District performance is significantly different from this benchmark, either above or below, this is a signal to management to assure themselves that processes are being followed correctly, fairly and consistently….”
Therefore to avoid intrusive scrutiny from higher management the logical outcome would be to ensure your office hits the 6% target…...I mean benchmark….
This is a shocking revelation, though many of us have suspected that such things go on with some DWP staff. Is this behaviour also occurring with ESA disallowances?
It sounds like a case of the minister wanting to increase sanctions and so staff respond by hearing “Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?”.
Public officials who knowingly break the law and which then causes harm should be very careful. They may be committing the criminal offence of misconduct in a public office: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/misconduct_in_public_office/
Conceivably this might arise if, for example, a JCP employee deliberately set up someone to be sanctioned and the person then committed suicide. Indeed, there have been tragic cases of suicides occurring after sanctions.
Aside from the hardship and anguish sanctions cause, the interview with one of those sanctioned shows how sanctioning actually impeded his search for employment and severely alienated him from the support offered by JCP. Even within the DWP’s terms, they are counter-productive.
The DWP are just putting forward the message as instructed aren’t they?
Sadly the phrase ‘lies, damn lies and statistics’ has never been more true.
And the ‘figures’ are based on the ‘old’ ESA test.
Spin is dead? pah.
At least the Torygraph got the names correct. The Mail has got it’s facts dreadfully mixed-up and incorrect it its coverage - “Letters are being sent out to people on the Disability Living Allowance, asking them to submit reassessments. There are currently around two million adults claiming the allowance. The move comes after a trial review found that almost a third of people in Burnley and Aberdeen were fit for work and 38 per cent had the potential to work with the correct support.”
Going back to the JCP story, is there more that advice services could be doing to assist JSA claimants so that they aren’t able to be persuaded to sign unreasonable jobseeking agreements or be otherwise intimidated into attempted job applications that clearlty have no chance of success? Or maybe some assistance with challenging sanctions decisions byway of appeals - the costs invovled if everyone sanctioned made a formal appeal would be far greater than any savings acheived through such a change in “culture” as it was called.
On the appeals/sanctions issue, I do remember in my 4 years working on Lasa’s appeals representation team only seeing a very small handful of referrals in relation to JSA sanctions, so I think you’re correct that many JSA claimants don’t seek independent advice when sanctions are imposed, or probably simply accept being told that there isn’t anything that they can do to challenge such a decision.
Just been reading a very interesting piece by Larry Elliott, economics editor, in today’s Guardian looking at the coalition’s ability at managing the economy. Last couple of paragraphs below….
It has to be hoped this doesn’t happen because the human cost of a second downturn will be higher than it was in 2008-09. Then, the government spent a lot of money beefing up Jobcentre Plus so unemployed people were given customised help to get them back into work. It was expensive, but it was a success. Despite a peak to trough fall in output of 6% between early 2008 and late 2009, the rise in joblessness was smaller than in the 1990-92 recession, when the economy shrank by little more than 1%.
A different ethos appears to motivate the current administration. This paper reported on Saturday that vulnerable jobseekers are being tricked into losing their benefits by staff instructed to hit targets for reducing the welfare bill. If true, that suggests the government is not just economically incompetent but malicious to boot. In quite a crowded field, it would stand as the vilest policy introduced by the coalition so far.
I don’tknow if this is the right place to post this comment.
I have a client who has been in recept of income support since 2006 when she turned 18yrs. There has been an overpayment raised due to part time earnings and we are appeaing the recovery because the DWP were informed of the change in circumstances.
The processing team have now informed our client that she should never have been awarded income support in the first place but should have claimed ESA. This is clearly wrong and we are currently awaiting the usual 3 hour call back from the procesing team to find out why they have told our client this.
By the way, she has learning difficulties and mental health problems and receives DLA HRC LRM.
I don’t see how she could have claimed ESA “in the first place” if she’s been claiming since 2006 - ESA wasn’t introduced until 2008. That doesn’t sound like tricking someone, it sounds to me like plain stupid.
In relation to the JSA issue:
We have certainly seen a significant rise in sanction issues in recent months. Case in point this morning- client has a learning difficulty, was in special needs education, has never managed to learn to read or write. Other disabilities as well. Left school at 16 and was lucky enough to find job he could cope with and a very sympathetic employer who supported him. Unfortunately, was made redundant 2 years ago and has been recieving JSA ever since (now in his mid 50’s). Is now subject to sanction due to failure to comply with his JS agreement (hasn’t applied for enough jobs). His sister (who provideds him with a lot of support) has explained to JC staff that as he cannot read or write he can’t read the notice boards, local papers, etc, and that she can’t be with him all the time to do so for him. In addition, there are few jobs available with no requirement for basic literacy skills but JC staff weren’t interested apart from one more sympathetic officer who told sister client should be claiming ‘another benefit’ but she wasn’t allowed to say what…
Anyhow- appeal now in against sanction decision and client will henceforth be claiming ESA (and DLA)....
Perhaps maybe worth contacting Guardian as a follow-up for case study to illustrate the actuality of this situation (provided the client & family are agreeable of course)?
I have real concerns that as we see more and more people shovelled onto JSA, whether previously incapaciitated or single parents, that such cases will become more and more prevalent.
Doubtless, Ministers and senior officials will deny this is the routine and that they cannot comment on isolated cases, but it does demonstrate how hollow their rhetoric really is when discussing welfare reforms.
So much for DWP denials: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/08/jobcentres-benefits-sanctions-targets
I hadn’t, but it’s a good point. I will suggest it when I next speak with the client and his sister.
letter to guardian from ex fraud investigator for jobcentre plus says that staff encouraged to investigate alleged fraud by lone parents with undeclared partners allegedly living with them and that -
‘Any defence solicitor or welfare rights advocate can seriously undermine an investigation by asking on tape how far behind his or her “living-together target” the investigator is.’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/12/jobcentre-plus-benefits-fraud?INTCMP=SRCH
One would almost suspect the timing, given that Parliament is in recess now, so that no questions can be raised in the instant about such possibly underhand policies and procedures. If true, there appears to be quite compelling evidence of discriminatory practice which is not only unlawful but also quite unacceptable from an administration that promised to protect the vulenerable.
... not only unlawful but also quite unacceptable from an administration that promised to protect the vulenerable.
Having worked in primarily HB/CTB for over 20 years, with an increasing awareness of other benefits since 2008, I can honestly say there appears to be little difference in the DWP’s attitude and approach irrespective of the colour of government. It seems to be utterly intitutionalised and, based on first hand experience(s), I have long considered some elements within the DWP and some LAs to be completely untrustworthy. The whole system is rotten to the core and UC in itself won’t change the fundamental mentality of those administering benefits.
And what about Magna Carta? That poor hungarian girl. Did she die in vain?
Perhaps an MP from an area affected could ask a parliemantary question:
Will the Secretary of State name the Jobcentre Plus offices in which managers misinterpreted guidance. Will he confirm that all decisions to sanction claimants in those named offices will be ‘reconsidered’ by a decision maker including decisions which have already been appealed or determined against the claimant by a tribunal.
I have long considered some elements within the DWP and some LAs to be completely untrustworthy.
I remember a few years ago bumping into a senior DWP official whom I had negotiated against on behalf of the Association of County Councils about ineligible service charges and the transfer of funding to LAs (which eventually became Supporting People - we originally opposed this and knew that DWP was just wanting to dump a problem on LAs) His comment to me was “Oh that was a good wheeze”.
The Guardian are asking for examples of cases where sanctions have been applied erroneously, so I think some of the accounts above should be relayed to the journalist concerned, particularly Steve_h and 1964 examples of seriously misleading information being given out.
So if you are sanctioned yourself, have experience being sanctioned, or work with those who have had benefits cut off, tell us about it here. If you work in a Jobcentre or have done, we are also very interested to hear your perspective. If you feel more comfortable contacting us directly, please email me at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
see cis/1526/2010 -
interesting upper tribunal decision, concerning alleged cohabitation, where DWP provided misleading evidence to tribunal about police record of domestic violence call outs, as a result of which tribunal found claimant’s evidence not to be credible -
here’s link to briefcase summary -
Thanks for that link Paul- have contacted the reporter.
Just read this thread and it really resonates with me following a client I saw yesterday-
Client was severly injured in an attack some years ago and continues to suffer with mental health problems as a result. Client was receiving IB but this was removed following a medical in December 2010. Client appealing this and in the meantime was advised to claim ESA. Client did so but it appears he did not receive any payments and was credited with NI only, even though he is single, has no savings/income and had moved back in with his Mum. Client has now failed his ESA medical and when his Mum called the DWP to try and find out what options her son had, she was told that he should appeal this ESA decision and then they “could start paying him”
Anyway, as I could not understand why son had not been receiving income related ESA, if he had no entitlement to contributions based, I called the DWP. The adviser I spoke to said that when the claimant made the application he must have asked to be assessed for contributions based benefit only, although she could not confim this was what had happened as she had not seen the forms, so could not confirm if this was claimants mistake or the DWP’s (although of course the assumption was it was claimants…).
To cut a long story short claim is now being re-assessed for income related ESA and I have advised client to continue his ESA appeal so he can then receive IRESA at the assessment rate and in the meantime his IB appeal will be heard soon. However, clients mum reports she has made several calls to the DWP without ever being able to move things forward or have the issue of CBESA vs IRESA explained to them. Mum reports that after one call she did receive a call back as she was told someone was going to “look at the forms”, but all the callback adviser did was advise the ESA appeal and say son would be paid. This is clearly wrong as son woudn’t recieve any payments during the appeal without the issue of which ESA he should be receiving being addressed.
The adviser yesterday seemed very hostile and although I asked several times if claimant could have a copy of his forms I was told that DWP adviser would go and look at them and call the client back. Client is going to let me know what the outcome of this is but I have a feeling I’m not finished arguing with the DWP over this yet. I started my phone call to the adviser by being polite etc/speaking as I would want to be spoken to, but frankly ended up being pretty short and assertive as I just felt the adviser was trying to be deliberately unhelpful from the start, and the idea that the claimant actually needed and was entitled to an income of some kind seemed quite offensive to her. Anyway, the whole thing left me feeling very angry for the client who had approached the DWP for advice assuming they were the organisation who could assist him, and instead he feels they have deliberately misled him and them put barriers in the way of sorting the situation out.
Oh and another thing; his mum has been supporting him via her pension, but he has also claimed 2 crisis loans and reports the DWP staff he dealt with were rude and repeatedly kept asking him if he couldn’t just borrow some money from his family…..
Really not loving the DWP at the moment. Just hoping that Karma catches up with all these unhelpful advisers and one day it’s them or someone they care about who has to experience the things my clients regularly have to contend with…
Any reason he didn’t claim reduced rate IS LadyP?
Hi Nicky
Funny you should ask…. First thing I did was ask client if he was advised he could claim JSA/reduced IS whilst appealing the IB. Client and mother report this was never mentioned to them, in fact he was told he couldn’t claim JSA as he wasn’t fit for work. As part of my discussion with the DWP adviser I tried to establish why client wasn’t told about the JSA/IS and kept being told it was “policy” that clients were advised to claim ESA in these circumstances. I kept asking whether this was because clients were no longer allowed to claim JSA/IS under the rules, ie they have been changed, or whether the DWP just aren’t telling people about this anymore and was finally told the rules had been changed, but would welcome any further information on this…
Did discuss with client whether they could try to claim IS/JSA instead of the current ESA claim, but based on clients experiences so far the last thing he says he wants to do, and the last thing he could mentally cope with, is make a new benefit claim, particularly if the DWP will be unwilling to facilitate it. Plus I guess if he ends his current ESA then there is the issue about not being able to claim again with the same condition if something then goes wrong with an alternative claim. Keeping the ESA appeal seemed the wisest course of action although again I’m happy to hear alternative views.
Cheers Sarah
Hi Sarah
It may be useful for you to have a look at the replies in another discussion which are very relevant to your case - i have absolutely no idea how to do links but it’s in the ESA & Other Incapacity Related Benefits and is headed “thinking heads needed”
Nicky
“As part of my discussion with the DWP adviser I tried to establish why client wasn’t told about the JSA/IS and kept being told it was “policy” that clients were advised to claim ESA in these circumstances”.
That’s unlawful and you might want to raise that at a more senior level.
“I kept asking whether this was because clients were no longer allowed to claim JSA/IS under the rules, ie they have been changed, or whether the DWP just aren’t telling people about this anymore and was finally told the rules had been changed…”
That is simply untrue (see paras 24 and 25 of schedule 1B if the IS Regs) and if a known lie then it might amount to misconduct in public office
The ICB and ESA appeal should be heard together with a decision on the ICB given first. If the ICB appeal is allowed then the tribunal should then give him the opportunity to simply withdraw the ESA appeal. That’s what’s happening around here anyway. If, when events are concluded, your client finds that he has suffered a statutory loss of entitlement because of wrong or misleading advice you should ask for an ex-gratia payment.
Nothing surprises me anymore with these people.
here’s the tread ‘thinking heads needed’ -
Thanks for the replies guys and thanks for the link to the other thread, which I have just had a quick look through and looks very helpful. Have calmed down a bit in the last few days, but still feel that clients shouldn’t have all these barriers to contend with. Does feel like DWP try to keep people in ignorance, whether intentionally or through ineptitude who knows… ( and which is worse??).
Sarah
I occasionally come across really helpful people from the DWP and it makes a mockery out of any accusation that this is down to training, it is individual DWP workers who need to pull their fingers out and help people, regardless of what their bosses say. If they want support for their inevitable strikes they need to give a bit of quid pro quo like the brave person who leaked this information and the minority of fantastic staff they have.