Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Conditionality and sanctions  →  Thread

Are we back to automatic sanctions?

Dan Manville
forum member

Greater Manchester Law Centre

Send message

Total Posts: 169

Joined: 22 January 2020

I’ve just had my first post covid mandation notice, or rather had it read to me.

“If you do not participate your benefit will be affected.” my emphasis…

I wonder if we’re going to go back to the heavy handed sanction regime I thought we’d seen the back of in 2016 when they introduced the process to check vulnerability?

I’ve a feeling that failing to check vulnerability before mandating activity might be questionable from an EQA point of view.

Thoughts?

[ Edited: 16 Nov 2021 at 03:49 pm by Dan Manville ]
Elliot Kent
forum member

Shelter

Send message

Total Posts: 2299

Joined: 14 July 2014

This is presumably in response to the decisions in IR v SSWP (PIP) [2019] UKUT 374 (AAC) and PPE v SSWP (ESA) [2020] UKUT 59 (AAC) which make clear that efforts to water down the language of these sorts of letters risks the tribunals finding that they do not actually impose any enforceable requirement to comply.

Dan Manville
forum member

Greater Manchester Law Centre

Send message

Total Posts: 169

Joined: 22 January 2020

Elliot Kent - 16 November 2021 03:33 PM

This is presumably in response to the decisions in IR v SSWP (PIP) [2019] UKUT 374 (AAC) and PPE v SSWP (ESA) [2020] UKUT 59 (AAC) which make clear that efforts to water down the language of these sorts of letters risks the tribunals finding that they do not actually impose any enforceable requirement to comply.

Now I’ve looked them up… links to Elliot’s citations:
PPE: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e6a5278d3bf7f269e22a15b/CE_2126_2018-00.pdf
IR: https://www.gov.uk/administrative-appeals-tribunal-decisions/2019-ukut-374-aac-ir-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-pip

That is as may be but the language of the ADM at K1 et seq  leads me to think that the sanction bites, then the DM gets the referral and goes back to consider good cause after the event; just like the bad old days when a compliance doubt automatically led to a sanction which needed to be argued down and so often wasn’t.

I’ve spent rather too much time this afternoon hunting for the advice from DWP that sanctions were a last resort; that WCs would only mandate people after they’d failed to participate in non mandated activities; after 2016 I didn’t see anysanctions in my last job so it’s not high in my ken. Can anyone remember where it was and whether it still applies?

The case I’ve seen today, this is the first activity she’s been asked to participate in.

Dan Manville
forum member

Greater Manchester Law Centre

Send message

Total Posts: 169

Joined: 22 January 2020

Dan Manville - 16 November 2021 04:57 PM

The case I’ve seen today, this is the first activity she’s been asked to participate in.

It’s a rare day I am reassured by anything that DWP does but having had a a dig through Stat Xplore I am reassured.