JSA sanctions and no gaps in housing benefit

Hello.

I have differing viewpoints from two local authorities. One will want the claimant to prove NIL income the other will view the JSA as continuous whilst payment sanctioned (as long as JSA not cancelled). I have found some DWP independent review that supports the latter stance but cannot find a hard and fast rule within either regulations (might not be looking smart enough).

I have a claimant been sanctioned twice and breaks in housing benefit twice so I want to prove to LA that HB should not have stopped if JSA not terminated.

Anyone please help?

Rob

sec.19 JSA Act 1996 sets out that the amount of a JSA award is reduced in the event of a failure, as does sec.19A - thus the claimant remains technically entitled to JSA, it’s simply that the reduction is 100%.

However, this does mean that the automatic passporting for HB remains in place legally - I do know that certain local authorities are requiring people to demonstrate a zero income (which is obviously a difficult thing to prove).

How can you PROVE that you have no income?  Your bank statements may show nothing but that is not proof - you may be working cash in hand or being subsidised by family/friends in cash or kind.  I can understand the LA wanting information about how you are living if you are sanctioned (assuming they have a right to do anything other than assume the JSA is still operative), but that is far from being able to prove anything.

Aside from referring the first LA to the works of Kafka (would they even get the point?) it’s hard to know where to begin.  They should be well aware that they have no legal basis for not paying HB in those sanctioned periods.  If has been made clear to them that JSA is not in payment due to a sanction, then they have the answer to any question they may have about the claimant’s financial circumstances at that time.  No-one can “prove” that they don’t have what they don’t have - the onus is on the authority to show that there is real reason for doubt about the claimant’s HB entitlement.

Whilst they are sanctioned they still have to continue to sign on, comply with the same conditionality even though no payments are made, so their financial position is monitored by the DWP.,including access to hardship payments This issue was supposed to be clarified by DWP in respect on the inappropriate stop on HB when sanction applied with a view that no intervention was needed.  Why it is still happening really needs to be addressed by DWP.  Obviously circulars are not being read. Or perhaps they are expected to hear clarification as outlined by Minister, search ‘sanctions on housing benefit’ on home page and see update dated 6th January.

Useful guidance in HB G8/2014 about this problem.

HB G8/2014. I might have dreamt it but I thought that I read that they were now back tracking onthe idea of a long term IT solution.

Shaun

A great help. Thank you all.

While other contributors are correct about there being no legal basis for suspension in sanction cases generally, the nil income statement issue needs to be clarified.  As a matter of law the statement is not proof of anything and nor should it be seen as a discharge of a burden of proof laid on the claimant, nor seen as imposing such a burden.  It is what it says, a statement, or a claim if you will.  A simple assertion.  No more no less.  And, it should be accepted on its face unless the LA has evidence to the contrary.  Its legal status is simple.  If it’s true then fine.  If it is knowingly false then it is fraudulent and the law is well equipped with avenues of redress, both civil and criminal.  LA’s have the right to ask for simple evidence such as a current bank statement but should not be asking claimants as a matter of course to provide extraneous material such as witness statements but should use their common sense.  Many LA’s have their own generic nil income statement forms which can be found on their websites.

I agree Paul, however i get the feeling that “certain” HB staff must have been trained by the DWP in obstructive behaviour.

They seem to forget that they have a duty to maintain and administer a benefit legally, and are effectively responsible for keeping people housed.

The cost to society of homelesness intervention is way higher then 2-3 weeks worth of unpaid HB that can lead to eviction in some cases

DWP meeting this morning claimed that the issue of HB payments ceasing due to JSA sanctions should no longer be happening and said they’ve checked 300 cases and couldn’t find any problems.

If anyone does come across cases where HB has stopped due to a sanction decision only (as opposed for example to a disallowance and a sanction), then please let me know and I can pass details of the case onto DWP.

Not all DWP staff appear to have got the message…..

http://www.katebelgrave.com/2015/02/well-disallow-your-housing-benefit-for-two-weeks-when-youre-sanctioned-wtf-is-going-on-here/

Not sure I agree Andy - the blog post quotes the JCP adviser highlighting that an ASW decision can lead to both a disallowance and a sanction. For the humble claimant, the outcome is largely the same i.e. their JSA payments stop, but the point is they also need to reclaim JSA and it;s at that point the associated sanction kicks in.

However, the protection against HB stopping when a JSA sanction only is applied wouldn’t apply initially in such a case as the JSA claim has also been disallowed due to a decision that the person is not ASW.

Thanks all again. Consensus view yesterday at UC seminar was if JSA conditionality is met (sanction only) the claimant has no obligation to advise LAs and should expect HB to stay in payment.

There’s some information on challenging Actively Seeking Work sanctions here On what grounds can an ‘actively seeking work’ sanction be challenged?

And also why HB claims shouldn’t be shut due to JSA/ESA sanctions here What other benefits can be claimed during a sanction?

which are both pretty self-explanatory. I’m wondering whether we should update the information re: the technological problem on HB notification of JSA sanctions, given DWP’s claim that this is fixed and/or the advice for claimants to notify the LA of a sanction to be on the safe side - any thoughts?

Sounds reasonable. Consistency across LAs wouldn’t go a miss. Thank you for the links.