Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit migration → Thread
Further delay to UC rollout .... and other changes
((37.65 +16.40) *52/12 = 234.22 v 328.32 diff £83.61pm
So what am I getting wrong, please tell me?
Your maths is also a bit out here Lee… The difference is £94.10.
But you are right, there should be transparency and accountability in public office otherwise what is the point?
In getting him to accept the offer I obviously referred to the demands of the NAO and W%PC for DWP to start listening but needed to dangle a carrot as well as a stick. In his acceptance he referred to wanting to come and listen but also to talk about what is going well and his ongoing (and utterly bizarre) view that WRAs are damaging the chances of success of managed migration by being negative and scaring clients. As a response, it displayed the ongoing deafness in all its glory.
In some kind of way I can see where he is coming from, although I think he has got the wrong end of the stick.
Client came to see me today having been made redundant from her part time job. She had previously been getting a smallish amount of HB based on her earnings. Advised her that she has two immediate options - to get her HB reassessed on nil income and live off her redundancy payment for a while whilst she finds a new job or to claim UC in which case she would be 73pw better off as she would get her standard allowance as well as her housing costs. Advised her that if she returned to p/t work at similar hours/pay she would be a little better off (c£25pw) on UC. Client chose to stay on HB, saying that she had heard that UC causes lots of problems. Tried to reassure her that I could support her with the claim but she was adamant she didn’t want anything to do with it. In general I am finding that I am often having to do a lot of persuading to get clients to start UC claims, even when realistically it is their only option.
So I do think there is an argument to suggest that some people are reluctant to claim even where it would be clear that they would bet better off. I don’t think that has anything to do with WRAs though - I think that reluctance is coming from people reading things in the media and from anecdotal experiences of others in their community. I have a small degree of sympathy that some the media coverage is not completely balanced and concentrates on problem cases rather than cases where everything has moved smoothly. But to be honest if the DWP could get the system working better then there wouldn’t be all the negative coverage/experiences in the first place.
FWIW whenever a client asks me about UC or other benefits issues that have gained media exposure (e.g. WCAs etc) and whether they are ‘big problems’ my stock response is that it is difficult for me to say as by the nature of the role I only see people where things have gone wrong. When somebody’s UC claim has gone completely smoothly or they have received the correct outcome in their WCA/PIP assessment they don’t go to see a WRA.
Ok, have to confess I’ve only just discovered the support component is higher in UC. So that explains the possibility of being better off.
I think the point stands that on average, people are not £100 better off, unless to get the average you only count people who are £100 better off.
Thanks for checking my arithmetic BC, oops, of course since you knew my case study, you could:
10 years from start to rollout and perhaps 5 years until completion. At vast financial and personal cost. A growing number are saying scrap the entire scheme. The IT is apparently now hopeless because it is full of patches and changes in direction. The entire scheme will cost many billions and when completed will be so old and outdated it will need to be scrapped to make way for a new welfare system. Pointless and the only winners seem to be the software houses. Time to abandon ship?
In getting him to accept the offer I obviously referred to the demands of the NAO and W%PC for DWP to start listening but needed to dangle a carrot as well as a stick. In his acceptance he referred to wanting to come and listen but also to talk about what is going well and his ongoing (and utterly bizarre) view that WRAs are damaging the chances of success of managed migration by being negative and scaring clients. As a response, it displayed the ongoing deafness in all its glory.
Whilst the aim of the day for me is to come out of it with a clear agreement on a GM UC forum and all the items which should form an ongoing agenda and action points it seemed obvious to offer him the carrot of an opportunity to present what he wanted to present. He’s half an hour on what’s going well and a similar length to talk managed migration and the role of WRAs.
Now, whilst we’re all about partnership and positive outcomes I don’t see that, having given him those 2 agenda items, I feel especially obliged to stage manage the outcome.
Incidentally Mr. Fitzpatrick will you be there? I don’t have you on my list.
Indeed I will, Mike, all being well.
If there is further delay and particularly putting the draft migration regs to parliament that means the implementation of retrospective transitional protection for those losing SDP and the possible suspension of ‘natural migration’ for claimants currently receiving the SDP (although that could be introduced tomorrow as that arguably does not require new regs).
That assumes the draft regs survive largely unchanged following the SSAC’s forthcoming report, the governments response and then the parliamentary process!
Will the proposed amelioration of managed migration as leaked be enough to ‘buy off’ MPs who are increasingly concerned about UC?
It does seem to me that how the draft regs fair in parliament may determine the future of UC.
If there is further delay and particularly putting the draft migration regs to parliament that means the implementation of retrospective transitional protection for those losing SDP and the possible suspension of ‘natural migration’ for claimants currently receiving the SDP (although that could be introduced tomorrow as that arguably does not require new regs).
That assumes the draft regs survive largely unchanged following the SSAC’s forthcoming report, the governments response and then the parliamentary process!
Will the proposed amelioration of managed migration as leaked be enough to ‘buy off’ MPs who are increasingly concerned about UC?
It does seem to me that how the draft regs fair in parliament may determine the future of UC.
We are concerned that if they delay the managed migration with the transitional protection this will just mean lots more claimants will just naturally migrate to UC without any transitional protection and will lose out, especially if there is a delay in the implementing the proposal to stop natural migration for those who are getting the SDP. We also want to know what is going to happen to those families with 3 or more children from Feb 2019. Will they really only get UC for 2 children even if they were all born before 6th April 2017? Would be interesting to know if Neil Couling has any answers to any of this.
So two weeks ago they extended migration by a full year. Now it seems another 6 month contingency has been added on; to take the end date to June 2024. Is anyone keeping up? Will anyone not be retired when the final date of migration is reached??
hbinfopeter - me but only because they’ve pushed my retirement age back from 60 to 67 - but this is assuming they keep to deadlines. They’re still moving people from DLA to PIP two years after the migration deadline and that is less complex.
hbinfopeter - me but only because they’ve pushed my retirement age back from 60 to 67 - but this is assuming they keep to deadlines. They’re still moving people from DLA to PIP two years after the migration deadline and that is less complex.
And once in a while, we still see lone parents on “old style” Income Support, including the family and child premiums. Mind, I haven’t seen one for a while now. (Surely can’t be many left?)
MPs urged to consider voting down new rules on UC:
(Frank) Field told the Observer he was furious that his committee had not been given the chance by ministers to scrutinise the latest regulations, given the growing public concerns over universal credit and mounting calls for the system to be scrapped.
(…)
At a hearing on 18 October, Field’s committee asked the employment minister Alok Sharma to allow it to scrutinise the revised version of regulations before they were presented to parliament.
But in a letter to Field on 1 November, Sharma declined the request, stating that it would “diverge from the standard process” and delay the introduction of the regulations.
In his response on 2 November, Field said that “given the strength of concern” about the original proposals, he hoped the regulations had “changed beyond recognition”. He warned that there had been “no opportunity at all for anyone to scrutinise this version of the regulations that the department now plans to lay”
(…)
The DWP’s response is a masterpiece of arrogance [my comment not The Obs or Mr Field]
Chair’s Comment
Comment from Work and Pensions Committee Chair Frank Field MP:
“Having got it so disastrously wrong with its first attempt, you’d think that the Government would want to make sure its plans to move vulnerable people onto Universal Credit stood up to robust scrutiny. Instead, it is choosing to push these regulations through Parliament with no chance for MPs to make amendments.
That hardly inspires confidence that it has really made the changes needed to ensure that its actions won’t plunge people deeper into poverty. If its new plans don’t have enough safeguards to protect the vulnerable, then MPs will be left with no option but to vote them down.”