Claimants expected to understand criteria

more no words ..... non printable, anyway.

point them at the vulnerable claimant stuff linnked elsewhere on the forum?

get sick note from GP, app for ESA etc, and PIP if possible for at least your client 1

letter to MP

ask Daphne to flag to the PTB….?

I’m struggling to comment too!

See Rightsnet forum bit on equalities i.e. Equality Act and the attached letter from the previous Secretary of State which begs to differ with both jobcentres i.e. ‘an individual tailored journey’.

Feel free to share letter with jobcentres.

DWP vulnerability guide attached too

What they said.
For 1 ask the work coach to refer to a Disability Employment Adviser and consider complaining then escalate if appropriate

See attached WC guidance/training materials for WC’s to understand criteria re: diagnosis of claimant capability and circumstances and switching off work availability

Thank you everyone, very useful and helpful info (as always.)
I have sent a letter to the Senior Operations Manager, quoting the attachments you have sent.
I have directed them to the DWP Vulnerability Guide. There seems to be aspects of that guide, that have not been adhered to.
I have asked how the Work Coaches identified this group of claimants and how they tailored the interview and applied the criteria? I have also requested that the DM forward the evidence used, to determine the degree of risk before he/she closed the claim?

Reply from Job Centre for case 2, “before we can look at supporting housing costs they must first meet the eligibility criteria for Universal Credit. Claimant did not meet the eligibility or the exceptions criteria.” I am totally confused. Is this not part of the eligibility criteria? ‘Unable to live with their parents, including where there was a serious risk to health or of significant harm?’ Am I missing something?

There is a disturbing kinship between this discussion and this one - https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/13870/

It is as if DWP is abandoning the concept that it is there to help in any way, it is adopting the stance of a bloodless TV quiz host who will hand out the goodies if   and only if the contestant guesses the answer to a question they haven’t actually been asked.

In case 2, is that an actual decision? I’m perturbed by the ‘closed claim’ issue apparently popping up again here if there is no proper decision.

Thinking aloud…

Reg 14 UC Regs gives the exceptions to the requirement not to be receiving education, one of which is - ‘is without parental support (as defined in regulation 8(3));’ - which includes references to estrangement and serious risk to physical or mental health/significant harm to the parent

It doesn’t specify from whom the evidence of this has to come. I can see that evidence from social care would be helpful, but it isn’t demanded in the Regs.
I can find no guidance which demands this.

Why would medical evidence be rejected when potential harm to the parent is a criterion?

Under JSA hardship, the young person had a responsibility to provide evidence but also a broad range of third parties are mentioned as potential providers of evidence. UC is a different benefit of course but general principles should be the same - ?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/235102/jsa-16-17-severe-hardship.pdf

I suspect DWP is making it up as it goes along.

I think a formal complaint is needed as well as an MR.

Thanks for that. I am confused by the JC’s interpretation of policy and have requested a MR. I like the game show analogy!

This is part of a reply from the Job Centre. I cannot find anything in regs etc which states evidence of risk must be obtained from the parties the JC request? I sent detailed reasons (as a professional) why the claimant would be at risk.

“In these cases we would expect a letter or official email from the local authority, Peabody, Social services or a GP to detail some history of this risk, or that X has left home before and been in a shelter etc, if we look at our own data we can see that X has never had a different address from her mum, other than when she started the X course, her mother has also been into X Jobcentre to drop off documents on her behalf, this has been documented on our systems in December, this would indicate support and cooperation from her mother, this not typical in a case where the claimant is saying they would be harmed or at risk if they returned home.”