Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit administration → Thread
Universal Credit pilots reveal ‘a lot to be worried about’
from localgov.co.uk ...
The ongoing evidence from the nationwide Universal Credit pilots has revealed ‘a lot to be worried about’ with rent arrears and administration costs spiralling, NGO and housing association chief executives have warned.
The Government’s flagship welfare reform project, which is due to be rolled out nationwide from October, has come under pressure for the negative impact it could have on local housing and councils’ administration costs.
Speaking to the Commons Communities and Local Government Committee on 28 January, Kevin Dodd, chief executive of Wakefield District Housing listed a raft of problems encountered during their demonstration project.
Since it was launched last autumn, Dodd said: ‘Overall we have seen an increase in debt to about 11% of the debit, which normally on 31,000 properties is 2.9%.
‘People came into the demonstration pilot with no arrears they now have an average of £180 debt, the amount of time we used to spent on arrears cases was up to five or six visits, we are now dealing with 40 visits in each particular case.
‘The cost of administration that we are now putting in as a landlord – which could be up to £3-5m extra in bureaucracy to administer this system is being paid for by full and partial rent payers.’
Also out of 1,000 tenants involved in the project more than 170 have been served with a notice seeking possession. None of the tenants involved in the project was in arrears when it started due to the entrance criteria.
Department for Work and Pensions minister Lord Freud, told the committee: ‘We are going to take the lessons from demonstration projects and design a system, which will be a very open process, to make sure we do not undermine the finance of the (housing) industry.’
” Lord Freud, told the committee: ‘We are going to take the lessons from demonstration projects and design a system, which will be a very open process, to make sure we do not undermine the finance of the (housing) industry.’”
How about suggesting they pay the rent element of UC direct to the landlord?
Or is that too difficult? Why must they always be re-inventing the wheel? - & coming up with a square one!
If you cant get payments direct, yiou really need a clear definition of vulnerability. So the most vulnerable tenants are protected.
Unfortunately a definition of vulnerability is proving elusive.
At a recent conference, a concerned questioner tried a different tack. “what would the DWP accept as proof that a client was vulnerable for payment direct purposes?”
The succinct reply was….
“Vulnerability is a matter of judgement not proof”........
One in the eye for me then.
So the question should be:
What criteria are the DWP going to take into account to be able make a judgement as to whether a claimant is vulnerable?
The criteria doesnt matter. History has shown time and time again that they ignore their own criteria and rules anyway (such as a client of mine with a DS1500 terminally ill certificate being told he was fit for work, even though JC+ acknowledge that this is a passport to the support group. It still went to tribunal)
So the question should be:
What criteria are the DWP going to take into account to be able make a judgement as to whether a claimant is vulnerable?
We arein one of the pilot scheme areas. I asked this question of the DWP representatives at a recent meeting with the housing providers about the findings of the project so far. Answer ‘DWP are working on the criteria’ (for which one might read ‘but I have no idea what criteria DWP are considering might be applied’).