It’s no surprise that the DWP (Department Of Work And Pensions) is continuing to punish universal credit (UC) claimants with their harsh sanction regime afterall it’s their favorite and easiest method of punishment that they use.
The latest official figures show that sanctions rate had remained to above 7% from August through to November of 2023 which are the most recent months of which figures are available.
However in in March 2020, just before the pandemic began, UC sanctions rates were at just 2.5% having fallen steadily since January 2017.
The DWP have unsurprisingly given no explanation for this almost threefold increase in sanctions.
I mean how on earth could this happen?
Sanctions are imposed for various reasons but the most common are for failing to attend or take part in mandatory interviews, indeed 95% are given for this reason.
What we do know from past experience is that sanctions are given for wrongful reasons.
These reasons vary but are often and not excluding others claimant not receiving notification of having to attend a meeting, being ill and notifying the DWP that they were not able to attend or already working at the time given and their employer won’t allow them to leave for their DWP appointment.
We know that sanctions can and should be appealed however many aren’t aware that they can do so and have the energy to fight it.
Sanctions are particularly cruel because not only does the claimant get sanctioned it also affects any dependants that live with them.
Combine this with the cruel benefit caps and this with the three child limit which directly impacts a child’s health and well being.
Are incentives being given for Job Coaches to refer people for sanctions?
I can’t say for sure but we do know that they’ve been using these methods for years now and it’d be very out of character to stop doing this.
I do know that sanctioning people like this is cruel, inhumane and needs to be stopped now before more people fall victim to the DWPs cruel regime of punishment and blame.
It’s been a long while since I’ve focused upon the DWP’s enforced volunteering (Workfare) schemes so I thought I’d revisit it.
Myself and many others have been protesting against them for many years for the reasons below.
Enforced volunteering goes against everything that actual volunteering stands for and it’s so bloody wrong.
Here’s a list of reasons why Workfare is wrong, and what the knock on effects are for people employed at these work places.
Workfare actually puts claimants at an increased risk of sanctions If they can’t attend their Workfare placement for any reason albeit disability, Illness, childcare etc their DWP work coach can refer them to be sanctioned.
Enforced volunteering criminalises the unemployed, setting the so called deserving and undeserving poor against each other after all how dare people not work for nothing. (I’m being sarcastic)
Of course everyone should be paid a wage for the work that they do.
Work for nothing schemes perpetuate poverty and inequality. It’s soul destroying being forced to work for nothing whilst doing the same things as paid employees are.
Workfare schemes have displaced paid workers and workers. I’ve written about previous employees being forced to volunteer at their previous employment doing the same job.
They provide free labour for private companies. Why pay someone when they can fill those positions with unpaid workers. It’s a win win for them.
Workfare undermines the fundamental rights to social security, which gives the claimant free choice of employment, equal days pay for an equal day’s work.
It undermines a workers basic rights to pay and fair working conditions by introducing a claimant workforce doing the same job without the legal status as workers.
Workfare drives down wages and conditions for all workers by undercutting the labour market and undermining bargaining power. Once again why should they pay employees when they can get free labour.
It doesn’t help people into paid employment despite this being the premise of the reason why Workfare was created.
Enforced volunteering actually prevents claimants from doing their own job searches based upon the work that they’re qualified to do.
For a long time now Workfare schemes create false employment statistics because claimants undertaking workfare are counted as in employment.
Workfare undermines the values and practice of volunteering. It can’t be called volunteering if it’s not voluntary.
It’s shocking that this is still happening and that no one is talking about this anymore. I’ve called Universal Credit being a digital workhouse, claimants having to do everything their work coach says or face being sanctioned.
No one should ever have their main means of survival taken away from them. Every person deserves to have the ability to buy food to eat, to keep warm and have somewhere decent to live.
Sanctioning people is totally unacceptable, a sadistic way of punishing people especially taking the cost of living and energy cost crisis.
As I write this the temperature outside is -4 and I worry about everyone that is now chasing warmth every day. Job searching is extremely hard when your main focus is hunger and cold.
My thoughts are with everyone that can’t get out and can’t access warm spaces, not can they access food banks.
Whilst although I’m glad that these warm spaces have been created for people to use we should be protesting about the need for them in the first place.
They say ‘The greatness of a nation can be judged by how it treats its weakest member’. The UK is clearly failing those most in need. The only way of rectifying this would be a general election and a new government that would prioritise those most in need first.
Will this happen? I’m not sure but I hope that they do.
EDIT I forgot to thank Boycott Workfare for their hard work and campaigning which resulted in some charities from using unpaid workers.
Please take care everyone my thoughts are with you.
I don’t get paid for any of the work that I do. If you like my work and would like to donate to keep both myself and this blog going you can find a donate button at the top and side of this blog post.
I hope you all enjoy the festive period even though I know it’s tough for so many of us.
Here over at The Poor Side Of Life HQ it’s going to be a quiet one, to be honest I’m not really celebrating it.
Of course I’ll make sure that my daughter enjoys Christmas but as a single parent and having no family etc to celebrate with it’ll be quiet.
I’m going to take the time to reflect and maybe get some rest, it’ll be a welcome change.
Don’t feel pressured into celebrating Christmas if you don’t want to. Christmas is a tough time for so many of us, remembering times past and people long gone.
I’m here if you’re on your own and want to chat.
A huge thanks to everyone that reads and shares my blog posts it really does mean the world to me.
And as for the Tories they can get to feck. I have zero time for them.
It seems from years of experience in such matters that the DWP like nothing more than handing out sanctions during the festive period.
If that isn’t bad enough their reasoning for sanctioning people is mostly totally unreasonable, giving claimants targets that they can’t reach.
In my eyes sanctioning a person is the cruelest thing to do to a claimant. No regard is given as to the health and wellbeing of them either, once the decision is made by their DWP work coach and sent off for approval it’s down to the claimant to appeal the sanction.
Appealing a decision to sanction isn’t easy, it’s difficult and directly impacts their mental and physical health and a direct correlation between the two can be found. Please see my previous blog posts.
Here are some examples of the reasons why claimants have been sanctioned. It’s gaslighting at its worst but hey the DWP has targets to reach.
I’ve helped many people with sanction decisions. You might think that these are made up but they aren’t they’re the real deal.
Sanctioned because claimants father had just died.
Sanctioned because a claimants father had just passed away half an hour before the signing on appointment.
They phoned their advisor up and were told that they had to attend their appointment. The claimant was waiting for the doctor to certify the death.
Sanctioned because their baby died.
A claimant sanctioned because they couldn’t attend their appointment due to their baby dying. They asked their work coach if they could rearrange their appointment but was refused. Instead they were told to bring the death certificate in to prove it.
Sanctioned because a work coach made a mistake.
Sanctioned because a work coach made a mistake in their records for an upcoming appointment. Luckily the claimant had kept the proof on their appointment which was given on an appointment card showing the time and date that they were given to attend
The case of the missing letters
Here’s a very common reason for sanctioning people.
Sanctioned for not attending an appointment that they had supposedly been sent a letter for.
The letter was never sent.
The onus is on them to prove that the claimant recieved it. They couldn’t because they didn’t. Watch out for this one folks
Sanctioned for attending a job interview.
Sanctioned for attending a a job interview at the same time as a signing on appointment.
They requested that their appointment be changed so they could attend their interview but their advisor refused.
Important to know that they’d also sanctioned for not attending their interview.
It’s a catch22 a no win situation except for the DWP
Any reputable organisation would not threaten to sanction or indeed sanction people for the above reasons. They’d actually care about the people that they help.
The DWP do neither, they don’t even care for their staff and it’s scandalous that they’re allowed to get away with this.
As I’ve previously posted sanctioned rates are rapidly increasing.
It’s important to remember that sanction decisions can be appealed and you must do this.
A huge thank you to everyone for reading and sharing my blog posts. You make a huge difference when you do this and I can’t thank you enough.
Please share my blog posts it does help lots!
Like you I’m struggling to manage everything, I was hoping to be able to turn my heating on for a few hours on Christmas day for my daughter but that’s impossible now. Nor will I be able to provide a decent Christmas dinner.
If you can afford to and would like to donate to keep my blog going and myself there’s a donate button at the top and side of this blog post.
According to the latest DWP statistics that have been released reveal that 522,690 UC claimants have been sanctioned in the previous year to July 2023.
They show that in July 2023 49,000 new sanctions were applied.
These figures are very concerning with 6.48% of the claimants sanctioned is now almost reaching the peak rate in October 2022.
According to the statistics 96.5% of sanctions were applied for failure to attend or participate in a mandatory interview.
However these statistics don’t reveal the claimants reasons for not attending or participating in mandatory interviews.
One of the most common reasons for the above is not receiving any communication from the DWP that would inform them of these appointments. For more information about this please see a previous blog post titled ‘The case of the missing letters’
Other reasons for non attendance include illness, childcare commitments and not being able to physically attend an appointment.
Of course claimants can appeal these decisions but it isn’t easy to do and many still don’t know that they can do this.
It’s also important to know that sanction decisions are made by work coaches and are often based upon opinion not fact.
For example if they explain to their work coach that they couldn’t attend because of illness, the work coach will decide if this is a good enough reason to do so.
Also in the event that an appointment letter hasn’t been received by the claimant the onus is on the DWP to prove that it’s been delivered.
Of course they can’t prove this, indeed I’ve helped in cases when the letters hadn’t been sent in the first place and I actually saw them still in a claimants paperwork.
It’s especially concerning that we are going through a cost of living and energy cost crisis. The prices of everything appear to be rising daily and many essentials are no longer affordable.
The cost of turning heating on is also impossible for many, and as we are heading towards what will be an extremely cold winter being sanctioned is unnecessarily cruel.
Despite the right wing media portraying the amount of Universal Credit is too much in reality payments are already barely enough to survive on.
It’s also vital to know that debts such as council tax debt repayments and suchlike are garnished from UC payments before they receive them. This leaves claimants with barely enough to buy the very basics needed.
As a result of this an ever increasing amount of people, working and not working are becoming dependent upon food banks. Food banks are also struggling to keep up with the increasing demand because of the cost of living crisis, leaving many that used to donate food unable to do so anymore.
Sanctioning already vulnerable people in the midst of a very serious cost of living crisis and a cold winter is beyond cruel.
Taking away a person’s very means of survival is totally unacceptable, with the ramifications of this lasting a long time, some never recover from it.
We need to start campaigning against sanctioning again because there’s never been a more important time to do so.
As Ireland announces their 2024 budget today they show in detail how it intends to use one of the strongest public finances in Europe.
This budget intends to cut future pension and climate costs whilst at the same time introducing more measures to ease the public’s cost of living stresses.
Having a budget surplus in Europe whilst unusual, should be something that the Irish government should be proud of. It’s quite an achievement considering there was after a rise in public spending during the pandemic.
The rather savvy decision to increase Irish corporate taxes paid by a small number of foreign firms has resulted in them having a surplus amount of 2.9% of gross national income last year.
Budget details are as follows and doesn’t exclude others:
1. A mortgage tax break worth up to €1,250 for homeowners. It will be given to those with a home loan of between €80,000 and €500,000 at the end of last year. Those who qualify will get 20 per cent relief on the increased amount of interest paid on their mortgage between 2022 and 2023.
2. At the moment working people start paying tax at the top 40 per cent rate once they earn €40,000. This rate will be increased to €42,000.
3. There will be three energy credits of €150 each – one before Christmas and two after it.
4. A double payment of child benefit will be made before Christmas, and a double welfare payment after Christmas.
5. The Qualified Child Increase is to rise by €4 to €46 per week for under 12-year-olds and to €54 per week for over 12-year-olds.
6. The successful hot school meals programme is to be extended to a further 900 primary schools in April and parents benefit is to be extended to nine weeks from August.
5. The monthly Domiciliary Care allowance is to increase by €10 and Child Benefit is to be extended to 18-year-olds in full-time education.
6. All social welfare payments are to rise by €12 a week.
7. The budget will also include the establishment of new savings funds where excess corporation tax revenues will be lodged.
8. Tax credit for renters is likely to climb from the current €500 to €800.
9. The free schoolbooks scheme will be extended to students in the first three years of secondary school.
10. There is an agreement to reduce childcare fees by another 25 per cent but that it would occur “later” in 2024.
14. Theres also help for small business and farmers and also a social welfare package put together by minister Heather Humphreys.
15. Finance Minister Michael McGrath will lay out how much the government intends to invest in a sovereign wealth fund that his department says could cover much of Ireland’s age-related costs to 2035 if enough of the corporation tax receipts are saved
16. A second, smaller 14 billion euro ($14.8 billion) infrastructure and climate fund, available to catch up on targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions and act as a buffer against capital spending cuts in any future downturn.
.
17. This will involve help for pensioners, people in receipt of social welfare payments with the focus being on children and families thus making it easier to raise a family and helping to reduce and an aim to end child poverty.
18. Donohoe announces funding for over 2,500 additional beds in hospital and community settings, along with an increase of more than 22,000 staff through additional recruitment.
Mr Varadkar said the budget will be “a little bit different to last year because inflation is moderating
He also said: “The nature of the tax system is that middle income and higher income people pay the most income tax so therefore any income tax package is going to benefit middle income people and more affluent people more.
“But that’s why you have to see the budget in the round and there will be other measures for example around the cost-of-living, around social welfare and around the cost of childcare and the cost of school and college. They will benefit everyone. People who aren’t working for example will benefit a lot from them.”
Whilst I’m not saying this budget is perfect and I’m sure there’s some that will criticize it but it’s a world away from what the UK is offering at the moment.
The huge difference between that the UK’s budget announcements and those of Ireland is alarming and shouldn’t be ignored.
In the UK unemployed and disabled people are demonized for claiming benefits and the government continues to attack most vulnerable with cuts to benefit payments and extremely harsh DWP compliance requirements and rules.
What this does show is that Ireland clearly understands the importance of investing financially in the well-being of it’s people. They know that this helps their economy a great deal.
The UK will never have a healthy economy like Ireland until they do the same, it’s extremely short sighted not to do so. Common sense shows that this helps to grow both local and national economies.
Huge changes are needed in the UK as well as creating policies with aims like those of Ireland.
The question is will this happen with future UK governments? I won’t hold my breath.
The government has been found to be still deducting money from people’s Universal Credit to pay their utility bills, despite them losing a legal case concerning deductions being taken from other benefits.
Roll back to 2022 High Court judges judged that this payment scheme which allows money to be taken from people claiming benefits to pay energy bills, was unlawful if the claimant had not been consulted first.
However it comes as no surprise that the ruling did not cover people claiming Universal Credit. Thousands of people are are still having money taken from their payments without consulting with claimants to see if they can afford to pay them.
This leaves them with far less money to cover their bills and everyday expenses.
The government unsurprisingly says the policy is fair after all their not struggling financially are they.
The government said that the repayment scheme protected people from the potential consequences of not paying bills which includes and is not exclusive to homelessness, service disconnections, potential court actions.
All of which will still occur because taking payment deductions without consulting the claimant will still result in all of the above.
It’s totally unfair, the repayment decisions don’t take into account a person’s ability to afford this and undoubtedly push people further into poverty.
Under the governments repayment policy, private utility companies and others can apply to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) for up to 25% of a person’s benefits to be paid directly to them – to repay a debt and meet ongoing usage costs.
That’s a hell of a lot of money to be taken from a persons payments. Many claimants have more than one debt being taken from their payments.
It’s unfair and cruel, it’s already a struggle to get by due to the cost of living and energy payment crises.
Court Ruling
In september last year (2022), a disabled former Leicestershire police constable won a High Court case against the government scheme.
The court ruling is applied to some claimants on legacy benefits eg jobseeker’s allowance (JSA) and income-related employment and support allowance (ESA).
But the devil’s in the detail isn’t it. The ruling does not apply to people claiming Universal Credit.
No surprise really, there’s no way they’d want this to apply to UC claimants. It’s a cruel, harsh system and they don’t want it making life easier for them.
However following another separate legal change, which took effect in April 2022, households receiving Universal Credit. This legal change states that claimants must now be asked to agree to new deductions for ongoing usage costs for electricity or gas.
But once again the DWP is taking full advantage of this decision. It’s a request and not a legal requirement to ask for consent for new deductions for electricity or gas and water bills that are in arrears.
So they give with one hand and take more away. Surprise surprise.
In figures released in November 2022 to the BBC show that around 431,800 automatic deductions were in place from households receiving Universal Credit for utilities bills. A Freedom of Information request by BBC News has found 221,000 of those were for arrears.
In June, the DWP lost an appeal against the High Court ruling and is now allowing people the chance to submit representations before new deductions are made from legacy benefits.
It says it doesn’t plan to retrospectively seek consent from anyone already having money deducted.
The DWP have told BBC news that they don’t make any money from administering third party deductions.
The final costs of contesting the judicial review and appeal with Ms Timson were not yet known.
I expect the government to continue to contest this decision at every step, after all their priorities don’t lie with people living in poverty. There’s always enough money for this
Digital aspects of universal credit (UC) has routinely lead to wrong payments being awarded to claimants which are often the most vulnerable claimants – and therefore breaches rule-of-law principles, new Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) research finds.
The three-year study found that while the digital nature of the benefit has some advantages for UC claimants, the way the digital systems have been designed can also lead to people being left without vital money they are entitled to and information they need in order to challenge DWP decisions.
In the worst cases claimants are forced into acute hardship because the programming and operation of this digital- by-design benefit does not align with social security legislation.
The charity’s report catalogues numerous injustices and breaches of rule-of-law principles in the operation of digital UC systems and reveals the extent to which its workings are opaque for claimants and researchers.
Problems uncovered by CPAG’s research include people missing out on additional support they are entitled to because the online claims process does not identify their needs. Families are going without their entitlements for all children because verification paperwork is pending for one child.
Care leavers are also unable to submit a digital claim in advance of their 18th birthday even though DWP guidance enables this.
Worryingly, the research found that in the year ending February 2023, approximately one-third of the 2.9 million registrations for UC did not result in a claim being submitted at all but there appears to be no DWP information in the public domain on why the drop-out rate is so high.
CPAG’s research suggests that aspects of the digital claim form that make it difficult for some claimants to complete the form and establish their entitlement may explain at least some of these abandoned claims.
Digital claim form does not ask all the right questions
Some claimants are entitled by legislation to extra amounts of UC or exemptions from the standard rules of UC.
This can be because of their particular circumstances (for example if they have a health condition, are escaping domestic violence, are carers or care leavers).
However the digital claim form doesn’t always ask claimants if they meet any of the conditions for these extra amounts or exemptions. As a result of this claimants – who are not experts on the complex UC rules – don’t always get a fair chance to establish their entitlement.
In the worst cases, vulnerable people go without extra money or exemptions they should have.
For example, while UC claimants under the age of 35 renting in the private sector will receive the shared accommodation rate of the Local Housing Allowance (LHA), there are exceptions to this for claimants with certain rates of disability benefits, and claimants who have lived in homeless accommodation for three months or more while receiving specific support. These claimants are entitled to the higher one-bedroom rate of LHA.
However, the online claims process doesn’t ask claimants if they meet any of these conditions. Instead, the DWP expects claimants to understand the complexities of the housing cost element regulations and self-identify as having the specific circumstances and characteristics that exempt them from the shared accommodation rate.
This breaches the rule-of-law principle of procedural fairness and is a failure of the duty to make reasonable enquiries.
By failing to ask all the relevant questions, the UC system systematically discriminates against groups entitled to additional support – the very same groups who by definition are often the most vulnerable and at risk of discrimination because of their extra needs.
Nor does the digital claim form ask claimants what date they want to claim from even though backdating by up to one month for example if a claimant ‘couldn’t reasonably be expected to make the claim earlier’ for reasons including and not excluding having a disability, or a system failure.
Claimants can request a revision of their claim so that it has an earlier start date, but the DWP does not establish in each case when a claimant wishes their claim to start from. This then places the onus on claimants to self-identify that a backdate is possible.
This leaves some claimants who are eligible for backdating – mostly people with health conditions or disabilities – without money they are entitled to.
CPAG wants claim forms amended to ask all claimants if they require backdating or want to claim from an earlier date.
All children in a family deprived of support if one child can’t be verified
The UC digital system is unable to accept the verification of individual children independently of other children in a household. This results in families missing out on their legal entitlement to the child element of UC for all of their children. This happens if there is a problem with providing evidence to verify just one child in a family.
The computer system clashes with social security regulations which entitle the children to support.
Early Warning System case – November 2022
A woman has three children, aged 10, 14 and 19. The woman has cancer and claimed UC in April, declaring her children via a change of circumstances in June. She couldn’t provide evidence of her eldest child’s education because he hadn’t been accepted into college yet and it wasn’t possible to provide evidence until the new school year.
The verification for all of the children failed because of the lack of evidence for one of her children. Since June, her UC award has only included the single person allowance, limited capability for work-related activity and housing costs restricted to a single person according to the local housing allowance (LHA) rules. There is no child element for any of the children and no additional bedrooms allowed for them in the LHA size criteria
Early Warning System case August 2022
This claimant has four children, for one of whom she receives Disability Living Allowance. The claimant had recorded this child as being on low-rate care, when she was in fact on mid-rate care. This is irrelevant for her UC…
DWP asked her to correct it but she missed the message because English is not her first language. As a result, she wasn’t paid the child element (or disabled child addition) for any of the children (all born pre-Apr 2017) for three consecutive assessment periods.
She also had no work allowance applied and her housing element was reduced as she was deemed to be under occupying with no children in the household.
She missed out on around £1,500 per month, was in extreme hardship and got into massive debt. [The case, from CPAG’s Early Warning System August 2022, was eventually resolved by a welfare rights adviser
Digital system can’t accept advance claims despite regulations permitting them
DWP guidance enables advance claims of up to one month for prisoners who are about to be released from custody and care leavers in advance of their 18th birthday.
These claimants can’t receive benefits while they are the responsibility of the local authority or are in prison but the legislation enables them to make a claim while support structures are in place.
In practice however, the digital UC system does not accept advance claims. One adviser told the CPAG research team:
Will (adviser) – October 2021
The law allows care leavers to make an advanced claim… It doesn’t mean you’ll get your money earlier… But what it does allow, which is very important for that group of people, is… about four weeks before they turn 18 … the social worker can go out, get their ID together, and explain what the process is. You press submit, sit back. They turn 18….. And in five weeks’ time the money comes.
That’s the way it should work… [But in reality the DWP] say you can do something called advanced preparation of a claim, but you can’t do an advanced claim… If you press submit it all b…..s up. What we find with our young people is, they quite often don’t want to, on the morning of their 18th birthday, go through a claim… it can be two or three weeks, sometimes longer, before they’ll come back to engage with the social worker…’
Claimants lose access to information they need:
When a decision on a UC award is revised or superseded (changed) with effect from an earlier date, it can generate an overpayment (if the amount of the award after the change is less than was previously awarded). This can also cause underpayments (if the amount of the award after the change is more than was previously awarded).
When the award is changed from an earlier date, claimants can no longer see the original decision because their payment statement in their online account is automatically updated to display only the new decision.
Without being able to compare the original with the new payment decision, claimants have insufficient information to identify whether any overpayments or underpayments have been calculated correctly.
Similarly, claimants who previously received UC and then make a new claim lose all access to their previous online journal because it is overwritten by a new one.
This is a problem for claimants who want to challenge a termination of their award and for those looking to resolve outstanding issues on the original award.
Claimants in this position can only access their previous online journal information by querying the information available via the UC helpline, applying for a subject access request or waiting for the information to be reproduced in the paperwork prepared for a challenge of the decision at Tribunal.
Design of the UC system is opaque:
CPAG sees the same mistakes in UC decision making and administration time and again but the lack of transparency on its design makes it difficult or impossible to interrogate whether errors are automated or clerical, and if clerical, the reasons why those aspects of the system have not been automated.
To make UC more transparent at an operational level, the DWP must:
Make information on the system’s design available.
Explain how officials interact with the digital systems and publish its guidance for officials, and information on how it is applied.
At a system-wide level, the DWP must make the source code for UC publicly available, as is required by the Government Digital Service’s service standards.
The Department has committed to publishing the code for personal independence payment and pension credit but not UC.
Child Poverty Action Group’s head of policy and research Sophie Howes said:
“At its best, digitised universal credit makes it easier to claim. But at worst, it rides roughshod over rule-of-law principles and leaves claimants without enough money to live on. Try telling a mother of three that the computer says No to support for all of her children just because there’s a bureaucratic delay in the paperwork for one child. The DWP must take the wraps off UC so that its workings are transparent. There are low-cost changes the department can make to ensure digitalisation improves UC so that it’s fair, in line with regulations and capable of getting correct payments to all claimants. Almost half of children will be in households claiming UC when it’s fully rolled out, so getting it right is imperative.”
This is all pretty damning and shows what we have known for years. The Universal Credit system isn’t fit for purpose and certainly doesn’t run on a system of help and compassion.
This causes many claimants to drop their claims for UC because of its complexity which causes distress.
Thanks to Child Poverty Action Group for undertaking this research and publishing this report. It’s hard hitting but vital reading
A 87 year old woman died after developing hypothermia at home after expressing concerns that she was worried about paying her energy bills.
Barbara Bolton, 87, had previously told relatives she had felt cold after they had visited her at her home in Bury to check on her wellbeing. Sadly as a result she was rushed to Fairfield hospital where she was then diagnosed with hypothermia.
However despite the good care given by NHS medical professionals, her condition sadly deteriorated and as a result of her worsening condition she sadly died several weeks later.
Therefore an inquest into her death was opened at Rochdale Coroner’s Court, details can be found here.
Hospital notes given to the inquest indicate that her illness and subsequent death was linked to the fact she couldn’t afford to put her heating on.
Her son, Mark Bolton, 61, said his “proud” mum had refused his offer to help to pay her power bills as reported in the Mirror. She had been heating her home by using a single gas fire in her living room and used portable electric heaters to warm the rest of her two-bedroom house.
Ms Bolton had previously worked as a pharmacy assistant at her local Tesco until the age of 82 and she had lived at her home on Dawson Street in Bury for several decades.
Her son Mark told the inquest that he spoke to his mum every night and that she had told him that she was worried about her heating bills, despite assurances from him that he would cover the costs.
Mark said “She was concerned about all her bills because she was a pensioner. She was careful, she was mindful of the prices and worried about them going up,” he said.
Mark told the coroner that he had always told her to ‘just keep your heating on’ and ‘don’t worry about the bills mum.’ “But she was very stubborn and proud about paying her own way,” he said.
He told the hearing that his mum had ‘felt cold’ when she was found sat at her kitchen table by one of her grandchildren, who had gone round after the family had not been able to contact her.
Police coroner’s officer Jane Scullion told the hearing: “Barbara was admitted to hospital on December 11, 2022, with hypothermia, and a chest infection.
“During that time she continued to deteriorate. After a discussion, she was placed on end of life care and passed away.”
Assistant coroner for Manchester North Julie Mitchel adjourned the inquest and has requested statements from her doctor and asked for a medical cause of death to be provided.
“Her death was particularly accelerated by hypothermia and there is a possibility of self-neglect due to the lack of heating so her death has been referred to the coroner,” she said.
Hypothermia is caused by prolonged exposures to very cold temperatures and requires immediate medical intervention. Causes include not wearing warm clothes in winter, falling into cold water and living in a cold house.
Sadly I fear that her death caused by living in a cold house isn’t the first and will certainly not be the last. Thousands if not more people are being forced by an uncaring, cruel government to live in cold and in many cases, damp houses as a result of the ever increasing energy costs.
For those saying that she should have jut accepted the help offered, it isn’t always as easy for various reasons. Admitting that you’re poor and can’t afford to heat your home is a very difficult thing to have to admit, and as a parent this can be even harder.
Society deems that parents should look after their children and not the other way round, and asking your children for help can make a parent feel like an absolute failure, and she wouldn’t have made her decision lightly.
This nightmare isn’t going to end soon, I wish it was.The reality is that thousands, including myself are counting down the days until spring arrives and warmer weather returns, it can’t come a minute too soon.
The government has absolutely no intention of changing things for the better, they prefer to spend their time trying to cover up senior ministers deception and lies rather than help those in need.
It’s one rule for them and one for us and the death of Ms Bolton and others won’t bother them in the slightest.
I don’t receive any payment for the work that I do and to say it’s a struggle is an understatement..
If you would like to support my work and can afford to there’s a donate button at the top and side of this blog page.
I’m struggling to pay my internet bill which is due in a few days and keep myself warm like so many of you are too.
Every penny will be put to good use to enable me to fight the good fight for much longer.
Thank you for your support and a huge thank you to everyone that shares and reads my blog posts
It was recently announced during a Commons debate in parliament that Universal Credit sanctions (UC) are “back with a vengeance”. This comes after the figures for the last quarter have been revealed.
According to the released figures the sanction rates are now 250% higher than they were for the three months before the pandemic.
It’s extremely worrying that the figures have risen so much in such a short amount of time makes me very concerned about the welfare of UC claimants.
The huge increase allows for the ever increasing number of UC claimants. In layman’s terms it amounts to 2.5% of UC claimants being sanctioned each month which is almost double the amount when compared to 1.4% before the pandemic.
Let’s not forget that in June 2022 £34 million was taken away from claimants as a result of being sanctioned. This was followed in July 2022 by £34.9 million and then in August taking the total to over £36 million.
When you do the maths this totals to £100 million which has literally been taken from vulnerable claimants that were already struggling to pay for basic necessities.
Upon questioning these figures Guy Opperman minister for employment speaking on behalf repeatedly avoided answering a question which asked why the number of sanctions had increased so rapidly.
The only other possibility being that the DWP may have changed its policy on applying sanctions but neglecting to inform everyone that would be affected by this. After all it’s not the first time that they’ve done this.
The only answer that Opperman eventually gave was “The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the rise in the number of sanctions. Some 98.2% of sanctions are for missing a meeting with a work coach.”
Opperman declined to give an explanation as to why twice as many claimants are now supposedly choosing to miss appointments with their DWP advisor.
Of course this makes no sense because claimants are desperate to receive their UC payments. Methinks Opperman’s not being honest which comes as no surprise at all.
However Anne McLaughlin, SNP MP for Glasgow North East didn’t hold back from being honest in informing the commons the advice that she gives every UC claimant that has come to her after being sanctioned.
She went on to say;
“If you have your benefits sanctioned, do not take it lying down. Contact me and I will fight this for you, because this is wrong and nobody should have to live on less than the minimum income.”
This is of course correct, everyone that finds themselves in this position should fight it. The reality is that many don’t because they don’t have the strength to do so.
I have spoken to many people that had taken the decision to stop claiming UC because they can’t cope with it leaving them with little or no income to live on.
More MPs need to speak up about this in parliament but I won’t hold my breath. Only a few MPs including Debbie Abrahams actually speak up about this but others need to follow.
Please read, share and tweet my blog posts. Doing this makes a huge difference in raising awareness!
A big thanks to everyone that does so.
A huge thanks to everyone that has and does support my blog and campaign. I don’t receive any payment for the work that I do and every penny enables me to continue with my work.
The poor side of life 