DWP Boss wants British pensioners to pay National Insurance!

 

DWP BOSS THERESE COFFEY

THE Conservative Government's  Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, The Rt Hon Dr Therese Coffey, might look like a dyke with a cigar, but she voted against the legalisation of same-sex marriage in 2013.

The DWP boss has said that food banks are the 'perfect way' to help the poor. During the MP's expenses scandal it was disclosed that she was claiming £1,000 a month for mortgage interest on her London home along with £160 a month for a cleaner and £150,000 for staff salaries and office costs.

When she recently made an unannounced visit to a Liverpool Jobcentre, Coffey was asked if she would be ending the 5-week wait for Universal Credit that is causing many people severe hardship. She said: "No, I don't think we are going to change that." Coffey also believes that pensioners should be forced to pay National Insurance.

Ms Coffey (47), was born in Billinge, Lancashire in 1971 and grew up in Liverpool. She graduated from UCL with a PhD in chemistry. A keen football fan, she supports Liverpool F.C. and likes pints of Guinness. She's also in favour of lifting the ban on smoking in public places. 

Her voting record reveals a tranche of reactionary views, likely to be offensive to homosexuals, women, pensioners, migrant workers, and non-smokers. 

Historic Direct Discrimination Against Men

by Les May

A FEW MONTHS before my wife reached the age of 60 the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) wrote to her with all the necessary paperwork to allow her to claim her State Retirement Pension (SRP), which she received the week following her birthday. When I was 65 I received no paperwork from the DWP and had to ask for it. The week following my birthday I got nothing, so I wrote again and got an apology, but still no pension.  I wrote again asking for my pension and for the interest I had lost due to the late payments. I eventually got the pension, but was asked to prove that it would have been into an interest bearing account. It was and I received a £30 payment for the trouble I had been caused.  I estimate that I ‘lost’ about £35,000 by having to wait until I was 65.  My experience of dealing with the DWP suggest that it can reasonably be said to be guilty of institutional sexism.

You will perhaps understand that I have zero sympathy for the women behind the Backto60 campaign who are complaining that the State Pension Age (SPA) for women should still be 60 as it was from the 1940s until April 2010.  The Pensions Act 1995 provided for the SPA for women to increase from 60 to 65 over the period April 2010 to 2020.  These changes were announced in 1995 i.e. 15 years before they were to be implemented.  Don’t confuse these women with the so called Waspi women who are complaining that this process of raising the SPA for women has been accelerated for the period after 2016 when it was 63.

Last week two judges of the High Court, Lord Justice Irwin and Mrs Justice Whipple, dismissed a case brought by two women ‘on all grounds’ saying: ‘There was no direct discrimination on grounds of sex, because this legislation does not treat women less favourably than men in law. Rather it equalises a historic asymmetry between men and women, and thereby corrects historic direct discrimination against men’. (my emphasis)

Oh dear!  Oh dear!  This isn’t how equality between men and women is supposed to work is it?

However things are not quite what they seem and having to work longer may have its compensations after all.  Men born before 6 April 1951 and women born before 6 April 1953 receive a SRP of £129.20. To get the full basic State Pension a total of 30 qualifying years of National Insurance contributions or credits are needed.  Men born on or after 6 April 1951 and women born on or after 6 April 1953 receive a SRP of £168.60, i.e. £39.40 more!   The downside that to get the full basic State Pension a total of 35 qualifying years of National Insurance contributions or credits are needed, but some SRP is payable to people with 10 qualifying years.

The fact that even though the changes were announced 15 years before they were implemented, some women are claiming that they knew nothing about them, illustrates that in general people do not understand the benefits system they support through their taxes and at sometime in their life may be beneficiaries of.  But ignorance does not seem to deter some people from seeing anyone who is ‘on benefits’ as a ‘scrounger’.

********************

Loose talk by Job Centre DWP staff!

 Manchester LibDem Cllr. John Leech* reports:

Responding to the shocking comments made by DWP staff about Universal Credit claimants, the Liberal Democrats have blamed "Boris Johnson’s hateful Tory Government" for promoting hateful language.

Benefits managers have been caught on tape making horrifying comments about claimants including blowing them up with a grenade and “faking it", according to the Mirror on Sunday.

In one conversation a manager says: “The police sometimes have sting operations where they gather people together. We should nominate one person to throw a grenade in.”

One said they “have absolutely no time” for claimants with depression and anxiety.

The Liberal Democrats have blamed "Boris Johnson’s hateful Tory Government" for "actively promoting cruel language."

Liberal Democrat John Leech voted against the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and was the very first MP in the House of Commons to speak out against key parts of the Act including the Under Occupancy Penalty (‘Bedroom Tax’) and Universal Credit.

*  John Leech was one of two Lib Dem MPs to vote against entering Coalition in 2010 and the very first MP to speak out against the under-occupancy penalty (commonly called the 'bedroom tax') in Parliament.

*************

DWP horror in urging chronically ill man to work

 

Stephen Smith had his employment support allowance stopped despite weighing only six stone and being in constant pain. 

********

 STEPHEN Smith, 64, from Liverpool, has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, osteoarthritis, an enlarged prostate and uses a colostomy bag to go to the toilet.

Yet, he failed a Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) work capability assessment (WCA) in 2017, meaning that his employment support allowance (ESA) payments were stopped.  So he was told to sign on to get a £67 a week jobseeker’s allowance, visit the jobcentre once a week and prove he was looking for work.

Smith, who was living alone, told the Liverpool Echo:  'I could only make it to the kitchen to make food once a day. I had no muscles in the back of my leg, which meant I couldn’t stand up at all and had to lean or sit down all the time, but they were telling me I was fit for work.'

Nowhere else to turn, he contacted the Casa community centre and his case was taken up by Terry Craven, a benefit claims adviser. Opinions were sought from two doctors, who confirmed that Smith experienced significant difficulty and pain when completing simple movements and daily activities.

A note written by one of them stated:  'It is my opinion that Mr Smith could not walk 20 metres without pain or exhaustion.'

Opinions were submitted as evidence to bolster Smith’s case but in January last year his appeal was rejected by the DWP. It informed him that he had not scored the requisite number of points for him to be deemed as having limited capability for work.

With Craven’s assistance, he continued to fight his case and won the chance to challenge it at a tribunal just over 12 months after his appeal was rejected.

In the interim, Smith’s health deteriorated further. He contracted pneumonia and was taken to hospital. Photographs of him during his stay in hospital, obtained by the Echo, showed him looking emaciated.

Craven said:  'Around December time me and my wife went to check in on him and my wife said "if we don’t do something now, he’s not long for this world".'

Despite his poor health, Smith was forced to get a pass to allow him to leave hospital and go to the tribunal to fight his case.  Fortunately, having seen Smith’s condition for himself, the judge stated that his mobility and health problems meant that he satisfied the requirement for ESA.

Smith said that without the help of Craven and others at Casa, he 'probably wouldn’t be here today.  I had nowhere to turn. They have saved my life.'

The WCA has long been blighted by controversy. It has been widely criticised as error-prone and mechanistic, often causing harm to the sick and disabled claimants who are obliged to undergo it. Statistics published in 2015 showed that almost 90 people a month were dying after being declared fit for work.

After the Echo published Smith’s story, the DWP apologised and said he would receive ESA backpay.

A spokesperson said: “We are sorry for the experience Mr Smith has had and we are committed to ensuring that people with health conditions get the support they’re entitled to.

'Following the independent tribunal’s ruling, he is now receiving full ESA support. While Mr Smith continued to receive benefits and support during his appeal, we can confirm he will shortly receive all back payments for ESA due.'

(sent to NV by Joe Bailey)

     

*********

Sauce For The Goose

by Les May

WHEN my wife got to sixty she got her State Retirement Pension (SRP). When I got to sixty I had to wait another five years until I was sixty five.   Some months before she reached retirement age my wife was contacted by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) telling her what to do. Her pension was paid immediately after her sixtieth birthday.  Some months before I reached sixty five I contacted the DWP to set things in motion.  My pension wasn’t paid immediately after my birthday.  In fact it was not paid until I had written to the DWP twice to ask why I had not received it.

You will perhaps understand that I am less than sympathetic to all the whingeing from some women that they were not properly made aware that the age at which they would receive their SRP was increasing.

Incidentally these changes affected men too.   As the age at which SRP was paid was raised the age for receiving concessionary fares, a.k.a The Bus Pass, tracked this.   Previous to this the age had been set at sixty in 2003, though men were still expected to continue working up to the age of sixty five.

Finally one woman has set the record straight.  Writing in the ‘i’ a lady by the name of Kate Roberts writes;

‘I can’t remember exactly when I found out that I would not be getting my state pension at the age of 60 in 2011, but it was well before the change was made.

I doubt that I was unique in that – if something on the news or in the papers may affect me, I take notice.  I rang the helpline number for a pension forecast, and was informed the changes were to be incremental.

The information was easily and freely available unless you lived in darkest Peru.  I do have sympathy for anyone who is struggling to carry on working, but I really don’t see how it can still be coming as a surprise.’

Kate Roberts is quite right.  The Pensions Act 1995 contained the following provisions:

Equalisation of pensionable age and of entitlement to certain benefits

Schedule 4 to this Act, of which —

(a) Part I has effect to equalise pensionable age for men and women progressively over a period of ten years beginning with 6th April 2010,

(b) Part II makes provision for bringing equality for men and women to certain pension and other benefits, and

(c) Part III makes consequential amendments of enactments,

shall have effect.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/26/part/II/enacted

Under the Pensions Act 2011, women's State Pension age will increase more quickly to 65 between April 2016 and November 2018.  From December 2018 the State Pension age for both men and women will start to increase to reach 66 by October 2020.

Whilst the 2011 act accelerates the rise in pensionable age for women so that the rise to sixty five is completed two years earlier it is difficult to see how anyone can complain that the rise has come as a surprise to them. 

******* 

Some Subtle Social Engineering Experiment?

 What Are Rochdale's 'Alpha- Councillors' Up To?

by Andrew Wastling

I READ with total incredulity that Council Tax payers in Rochdale will from 1 April be paying more on our Council Tax bills than people in Manchester.

This news stunned even those friends & neighbours of mine tempered  on the hammer & anvil of local council stupidity by serial  antics from Rochdale Council over the years.

After all only last year Manchester was voted the best place to live in the UK beating even London which was ranked ten places lower. Rochdale as we know was not.

The Global Liveability Survey compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit scored 140 cities worldwide out of 100 in the areas of health care, education, stability, culture and environment and infrastructure. Manchester scored  88.8 out of a 100 and was ranked the 43rd best city in the world to live in.

I am not sure where exactly Rochdale ranked in 'the 140 best cities to live in worldwide' but it must with some certainty have been much higher than Manchester to warrant this years 4.99% increase in Rochdale's Council Tax? Anything less would be Daylight Robbery .

I just wonder what Rochdale folk , (who pay more in all Council Tax Bands A - H  than Manchester residents), get for our money from Rochdale Council  that people in Manchester, (who pay less in all Council Tax Bands A - H  than we), do not get for their money from Manchester City Council?

I can only assume that word must have spread that we have a dedicated, specialist SAS standard trained cohort of 'Alpha-Councillors' invested here in the very heart of our community who have selflessly put Rochdale firmly on the local government map.  So proactive have past councils been that their list of triumphs is both exhaustive & colourful .

A toxic asbestos site - once the worlds largest asbestos factory - has been allowed to crumble into lethal ruin with no regard for the long term safety  of the towns residents for decades' Surely merits the considerable extra money we all pay as tax payers just on it's own?

Councillors who switch party without any due regard to political principle or the voters. Party's that rise & sink without tangible trace except for the extra expenses claimed as a separate political entity  in the Council - incidentally does anyone know what happened to the much heralded but quickly demised Rochdale First from 2014 they showed some initial promise ? Personally I think that for entertainment value alone this episode of local government shenanigans was worth an entire 1 % increase of itself ?

We have seen a £250 Million regeneration programme that has prioritised a £50 Million 'Norman Keep' - AKA ' No.1 Riverside '- ( almost flooded before the ink on the hastily signed insurance policy for the building  was signed !),  above scandalous levels of poor housing, lack of opportunity, local child poverty, and generational social exclusion, employment & skills gap.  Long promised retail developments few locals will be able afford to shop have taken precedence over community cohesion by Councillors that have all but ignored near 1930's levels of poverty & shoddy , damp rented housing, unfit in some cases for human habitation , the ingrained and widely denied second & third generation unemployment in some wards.

It's not just the shocking recent history though is it that calls into question the probity and transparency of local politics in this town.  All the kids on the Working class state I grew up on knew from an early age not to take sweets from a certain local politician in the 1970's so how our local adult councillors at the time remained unaware of the rumours remains beyond most rational people.  Especially when we had the benefit then of Rochdale Alternative Press to keep us informed about 'Fat Man's' activities.  From that edition onwards  it was clear that there was something rotten to the very core of local Rochdale politics and that a culture of historic denial or best just sweep it under the carpet - like the asbestos at Healy Dell - where hopefully it'll all just be forgotten about in time?

Its not just the skeletons still rattling in their  closet from  the 1970's that need concern us still - nearly half a century later - true to local form we still see new closets being crammed full by a political class at several steps removed from the majority of  local Rochdale folk yet again. he attempt to criminalise the homeless, beggars and under 18-year-olds is only  the most recent example of other notorious examples of the total and complete failure of local authorities to protect those they had a clear & obvious duty of care for.  This is an example of a mind set and dysfunctional internal narrative that posits that we - the Council - are beyond reproach , forever above accountability ,investigation and always without blame. In fact it is the victims of our successive failures of governance & policies who are at fault never us.

It's precisely this kind of insidious non-thinking culture that allows some of our more delusional or remote local decision makers still think they are once again unaccountable & above independent public scrutiny and natural justice.

The much heralded Kingsway Business Park was allowed to house a company so notorious for shoddy employment standards & practices that the DWP no longer allows adverts for the company to be carried on the Universal Jobs match site. Despite their near Victorian abuse of worker rights we have a nominally Labour Council recently reward this companies attacks on local working peoples employment rights by allow this Dickensian throwback to:   'extend  their European headquarters at Kingsway Business Park by 600,000 square feet to a total floor space of 2m square feet.'

It's clear that : '£100,000 in planning fee income' buys a lot of acquiescence  from our  'Alpha-Councillors ' who silence merely masks their complicity and tacit collaboration in the systematic abuse of local workers statutory rights exposed so graphically in last years C4 undercover report that should have come as no surprise since as long ago as 2013 concerns had been raised publicly about this new millennium workhouse.

This single handed attempt to undermine workers rights would also possibly warrant the 34%/51% expenses increase for Councillors - especially one would have though those councillors who are trade union members.  It's just this kind of co-worker solidarity we have grown accustomed to from our 'Alpha-Councillors '.  Long may our brothers & sisters in the Town Hall continue to stand with us in the  struggle - lets make the 'birthplace of cooperation' proud shall we comrades?

We best not forget from our list the disgraceful levels of Department of Work Pensions (DWP) sanctions have been imposed on vulnerable local claimants for weeks on end without so much as a whimper of protest from local Red Tory Councillors who continue feed their faces on £9.95 a head tax payer subsidised buffets whist simultaneously imposing a further £39 MILLION of Blue Tory austerity on local public services.  Indeed these quislings and complicit facilitators of central government cuts to northern communities & front-line services remain resolutely  in denial about local malnutrition rates, spiralling debt and food bank voucher use across the Townships.

We have seen also a disgraceful attempt to ride rough-shod over the human rights of people with learning disabilities & their desperately worried families & support workers by a shambolic, barley competent  consultation process  on  a proposed re-modelling of Adult Social Care that looked as if it had been compiled on the back of a fag packet. We have seen the Council widely ridiculed for its crass 'swearing ban ' across the media from Russia Today to the Telegraph for its ill conceived Public Space Protection Order that is so we are told hoped to be extended to schools gates.   Though quite who will pay for this is still open to debate since when the Council proposed schools pay for their own school Crossing patrols in December 2016 they were told that: '30 out of 63 schools were not prepared fund crossing patrols'.  As with the Adult Social Care remodelling proposals after a public outcry this nonsense was also rather hastily quashed.

As to proposals to store hazardous waste near a residential area in Castleton one can't help but wondering whether our 'Alpha-Councillors' are engaged in some kind of subtle social engineering experiment to ascertain how many toxic or hazardous industrial sites can be crammed into a five mile square inhabited area without producing genetic mutations among the local population - not too many more we suspect !

Once the news that Rochdale is a 'Social Utopia' governed by an elite of 'Alpha -Councillors'  extolling True Labour values & principles to the down trodden, huddled masses and their fame spreads far and wide across Greater Manchester we should expect an imminent exodus of aspirational  Mancunians re-locating to Rochdale?  Thousands of fleeing 'Economic & cultural migrants ' fellow workers & citizens eager to avail themselves immediately of Rochdale Councils superbly run public services , our fabulous public facilities , our renowned global cultural identity and international status that we will now all be able to expect as a right in return for our increased council tax bills?

As the great Dario Fo once said of comedy & the essential satire of politicians:

'At the root of everything I write is tragedy.'

Universal Credit - the bureaucratic nightmare!

A mind at the end of its tether - claiming Univeral Credit

By Steve (Starlord) Fisher



Iain Duncan Smith promised that Universal Credit would 'make work pay' and make the transition into and out of paid work seamless. This has not been my experience here or elsewhere. The whole system is not fit for purpose - it is a bureaucratic nightmare! Weber's 'iron cage' of bureaucracy! The unemployed now needs the skills of a Philadelphia lawyer in order to negotiate the system.

As a self-employed consultant, I've been helping a client (who turned to me in desperation), to move from paid work back onto Universal Credit. He'd been working as a manual worker for six months and his contract came to an end. However, it has proved a bit of farce despite our doing everything correctly.

The same day his employment ended we contacted the DWP and I was happily surprised that his claim was still open. This made matters easier, or so we thought. It was my understanding that a UC claim is kept open for 6 months to facilitate movement in and out of paid work and unemployment. Any longer, and UC is automatically closed necessitating the making of a fresh claim. Apparently it can be longer, anything from 6 months up to a maximum of 8 months. It all depends on exactly when work begins and ends and where it falls within a UC monthly commencement or start-up period and end period. We thought this 'good fortune' would make it easier to make a claim. That, after all, is one of the avowed claims of UC, to make the transition in and out of paid work fluid and seamless. So we thought that was that, but the reality it couldn't have been further from the truth.

He signed-on for a couple of weeks and received a letter telling him that his UC claim had ended! We phoned the UC help-line only to be told, eventually, that they had indeed cancelled his claim, in error. His claim had 10 days before expiry, and so I speculated the most likely scenario was that his claim had been terminated, automatically, because the paperwork from Ashton Jobcentre did not reach the relevant department in time, ie within 10 days. The help-line agreed this was the most likely scenario. We were told they may be able to 'rebuild his claim'. They said he could make a complaint. As it turned-out there was nothing they could do and he would now have to make a fresh claim. But any such claim commences only from the moment it is made. What about the last few weeks then? That's why it is imperative that one make a fresh claim as soon as possible because it won't be backdated.

When he signed-on he was told he was due a payment, but what did this mean now it had been cancelled? He received an award payment of zero. I already knew he would not receive a payment until mid-January despite what he thought because the first 7 days don't count and it is paid 1 month in arrears making for a 5 week wait at best. But does this fresh claim include the last few weeks of a claim that never was, even while signing-on at Ashton Jobcentre?

We resigned ourselves to making a fresh UC claim and would have to wait and see how this farce worked-out.

So, on Tuesday 21st December 2016 we tried without success to make an online UC application. That's how it's done these days. I'd already heard about the online completion time limit. We had 20-40 minutes to complete it. Exceed this and everything's lost. One must start again playing the UC version of 'snakes and ladders'. There is no option to save and return later as with other online systems.

The online form is a poor-mans version of a HMRC Tax Return. Very poorly designed, with poor 'error-handling'. It's almost as if it's been designed to fail, to put people off making an application in the first place, and even when one does try it often fails for other reasons. The software is very fragile. But how typical was our experience?

We had no trouble finishing within the time limit. However, we ran into a different but related problem. We were well prepared and had almost finished. We were just entering banking details when the bloody system crashed, telling us to try again later or continue with the current application. However, there is no way to continue. One is forced to abandon the current attempt and start again, but even that's not easy. We tried again only to be told a claim was already in process, that we would have wait 20 minutes for the current application to expire or continue with it, but as said this was not possible. So we had to twiddle our thumbs for 20 minutes and begin again just like poor old Michael Finnegan. This time we were moving at speed knowing exactly what to do only to find it failed within minutes returning us to the beginning yet again. Yet another 20 minutes of thumb twiddling. I tried again but we were getting nowhere fast. I suggested we try again tomorrow when we could phone the UC help-line if this happened again.

So on Wednesday 22nd December 2016 we tried again. Immediately we started we were told a claim was already in process and we would have to wait 20 minutes before we could continue, but I'd not done anything yet. I telephoned the DWP UC help-line and was told they'd been having problems yesterday. That explained that. Now the excuse, was that they were updating the system starting this afternoon at 16:00, with only minutes to go! The DWP officer thought we may have difficulty and it would be best to leave it to another day. However, I thought lets give it one more try and finally, success! I told my client to include all of these difficulties as part of his efforts to find work. However, one cannot save a copy. One does not get a receipt number or get an email confirmation. My client is told that he can expect a phonecall within 2 days to make an appointment at the Jobcentre. Of course, he's already done all of this!

My client has now been told that he's got a Jobcentre appointment for his UC claim and can expect his first payment at the beginning of February 2017, having started his claim on 30 November 2015, over two months ago. He is now in rent arrears and has been given his first a food-bank voucher  from his landlord. He now faces a gloomy Christmas, with no money, and wonders what was the point of taking temporary paid work, when all it does screws up your benefit claim and leaves you facing hardhip.  God help us, if this is what the government calls simplyfying things.

Jobcentre worker brands mum of three ‘a scrounging bastard’ in answerphone rant!

Jobcentre worker accidentally leaves answerphone message seemingly branding mum of three a 'scrounging bastard that’s popping out kids like pigs'

 

"A mum of three from Beckenham was left shaken after a Bromley Jobcentre worker accidentally left an answerphone message seemingly accusing her of being a “scrounging bastard that’s popping out kids like pigs”, it has been reported.

Cecilia Garcia, 44, says she had to give up a job in finance following a difficult marital breakup to care for her three children. Unable to afford the rent, Mrs Garcia reached out for support from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).

Last Friday, Mrs Garcia checked her answerphone messages and found a message from jobcentre worker Ann Goode, asking her to get in touch to discuss her benefits claim.
However, Goode didn’t hang up properly and can be heard angrily discussing the case with a colleague.

Unaware she was being recorded, Goode first began talking with her colleague about how much Mrs Garcia was receiving in benefits.

audioBoom: 'Offensive' Bromley Jobcentre voicemail left on Beckenham mum's phone
“That’s almost a thousand pounds a month – 12,000 a year”, she can be overheard saying.

The cruel and “offensive” jobcentre employee can then be heard referring to Mrs Garcia’s name.

“This is Cecilia Garcia. None of them are English names”, says Goode.

In reality, Mrs Garcia has dual Mexican-British nationality and all her three children – aged eight, six and four – were born in the UK.

Goode continues: “I don’t … I just don’t … why are we running around for these people?

“Do you know I resent even doing this work because if I had a person who said I really want a job, I want to go on your case load, yes, all the time, every day of the week.

“But not some scrounging bastard that’s popping out kids like pigs.”

“I’m going to get very politically incorrect this afternoon.”

Rather than being taken aback by Goode’s offensive comments, her jobcentre colleague can be heard saying: “You are, aren’t you? And I don’t blame you one bit”.

Speaking to News Shopper, Mrs Garcia said: “I got sick, I was so upset over the weekend.

“It is really offensive all the things that she says on the voicemail. And it sounds like the other person totally agrees with her.

“The fact that they say things like ‘oh they aren’t even English names’ – this goes beyond everything, saying I pop out kids like pigs.

“I have dual nationality, we did everything right, I’m not illegal. She shouldn’t express this about people from other backgrounds.”

Mrs Garcia says she noticed a change in people’s attitude toward those of a non-British background since the EU referendum.

“We could speak Spanish on the bus or train with no problems but now I tell my children not to speak Spanish in public places because I feel people looking at us like ‘what are they doing here?”, she said.

Mrs Garcia added: “Living on benefits you live on the edge. I study, I have a finance degree. I am trying to go back to work but I had to stop working because I have three children.

“I understand people say that a lot of people are taking benefits but not every single case is the same.”

A DWP spokesperson said they’re taking the incident “extremely seriously” and have launched an investigation."

Source:

Posted by Welfare Weekly 4th August 2016

Manchester demo against MAXIMUS and Work Capability Assessments!

We are publishing below a recent briefing received from Boycott Workfare:

"There will be a demonstration against Maximus and the Work Capability
Assessment on Monday 2nd March 2015 from 12pm at Albert Bridge House,
Bridge Street, Manchester, M60 9AT (meeting point St Mary's Parsonage
(the road/square off Bridge St on the Manchester side of Albert Bridge
House), Facebook event:
https://www.facebook.com/events/346833825508275 )

This demonstration is part of the national day of action against
Maximus and the WCA called by Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) on
Monday 2nd March 2015:
http://dpac.uk.net/2015/01/disabled-claimants-welcome-to-maximus-march-2nd-everywhere/

Maximus is the company taking over from Atos running the despised Work
Capability Assessments (WCAs) for sickness and disability benefits.
These crude and callous assessments have been used to strip benefits
from hundreds of thousands of sick and disabled people after a quick
computer based test ruled them 'fit for work'. A growing number of
suicides have been directly linked to this stressful regime, whilst
charities, medical staff and claimants themselves have warned of the
desperate consequences for those left with no money at all by the
system.

In a huge embarrassment for the DWP, the previous contractor Atos were
chased out of the Work Capability Assessments after a sustained and
militant campaign carried out by disabled people, benefit claimants
and supporters. In a panicky effort to save these vicious assessments
Iain Duncan Smith hired US private healthcare company Maximus to take
over from Atos this coming April.

This is not the only lucrative contract the Tories have awarded this
company. Maximus are also involved in helping to privatise the NHS,
running the Fit for Work occupational health service designed to bully
and harass people on sick leave into going back to work. Maximus also
run the notorious Work Programme in some parts of the UK, meaning that
disabled people found fit for work by Maximus may then find themselves
sent on workfare by Maximus. There is no greater enemy to the lives of
sick and disabled people in the UK today than this multi-national
poverty profiteer who even are prepared to run welfare-to-work style
schemes for the brutal Saudi Arabian government.

Maximus have boasted they will not face protests due to their
involvement in the Work Capability Asessments and have even stooped as
low as hiring one prominent former disability campaigner on a huge
salary in an effort to quell protests against their activities. We
urgently need to show them how wrong they are and call for all
disabled people, benefit claimants and supporters to organise against
this vicious bunch of profiteering thugs.

Albert Bridge House is the assessment centre used in Manchester by
Atos to carry out Work Capability Asessments. The building is owned by
the DWP and it is likely that it will continue to be used for these
assessments with the premises and staff handed over from Atos to
Maximus."

Details of other national and local actions:
https://www.facebook.com/events/771842739517758/permalink/775315939170438/

Links for more info about Maximus and the WCA:
https://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2015/01/09/there-is-no-greater-enemy-to-sick-and-disabled-people-in-the-uk-join-the-day-of-action-against-maximus-march-2nd-2015/
http://dpac.uk.net/2015/01/maximus-the-company-that-dare-not-show-its-face-scrapwca/
https://tompride.wordpress.com/2014/09/13/meet-maximus-the-new-atos-but-even-worse/

G4S guard told Jobcentre activist - 'I'm going to go out there and punch them' !

Ashton-under-Lyne Jobcentre is rapidly acquiring a reputation for thuggery. In recent weeks, NV has reported on how one 19-year-old Jobseeker had her benefit stopped because she told an employer she was 23-weeks pregnant. Another Jobseeker, was told by Ashton Jobcentre, that he would have his benefit stopped if he continued to support a protest outside the Jobcentre against unfair and illegal sanctions and the abuse of power. This week an article appeared in the Morning Star, alleging that a G4S security guard working at Ashton Jobcentre, had threatened to use violence towards protesters. We are publishing the article in full.

"PROTESTERS threatened with violence by G4S security staff at a local jobcentre have vowed to continue their fight against benefit cuts and sanctions today.

Tameside Anti-Cuts will return to their weekly peaceful demonstration at Ashton-Under-Lyne Jobcentre Plus, claiming they are "not afraid."

Last week's action ended on a sour note, when a member of the public exited the centre reporting a G4S security guard had just shouted: "I'm going to go out there and punch them."

Charlotte Hughes, who helps organise the unemployed in the town, said the behaviour of the jobcentre's outsourced security "beggars belief." "I've saved three people from committing suicide this month," she told the Star, adding that jobseekers feel increasingly intimidated and alone. Ms Hughes argued that the demonstrations are peaceful and that Tameside Anti-Cuts provides help, support and advice to the unemployed.

Demonstrations started in August after her 23-week pregnant daughter was sanctioned. "She attended a workfare interview and was told by the jobcentre staff that she shouldn't have told B&Q that she was pregnant," explained Ms Hughes.

Ashton-Under-Lyne was chosen by the government as the launch centre of its universal credit flagship scheme in April 2013. Ms Hughes said that is why the jobcentre's staff are particularly strict applying what she called an "inhuman sanctioning system." Today's protest is nonetheless expected to carry on as normal.
"We are going to make the jobcentre aware that they can't threaten us," insisted Ms Hughes.

When approached by the Star, staff at the Ashton-Under-Lyne jobcentre refused to comment.

G4S also remained silent on the incident."

YMCA accused of exploiting unemployed youngsters!

We are publishing below the latest briefing from 'Boycott Workfare'.

"Today boycott workfare paid a visit to the London headquarters of workfare exploiter YMCA. They’ve defended their use of unpaid, forced work in previous statements and we’ve called them out on it. Mandatory Work Activity forces people to work without wages under threat of sanction, and doesn’t help them find a job anyway. Whereas the Salvation Army have stated they will not get involved in the new 6 month long Community Work Placements starting later this month, the YMCA have yet to make a public statement on the issue.

The YMCA wants to have its cake and eat it. Their president, Bishop John Sentamu, has spoken against workfare. Yet, the organisation still takes part in some of the harshest schemes.  They’re also involved in delivering traineeships – workfare by another name.

We say volunteering should remain just that, and that people shouldn’t be “made to volunteer” under threat of sanction.

The fight against workfare is more important than ever, with 74,000 people being sanctioned every month. Sanctions are one of the main reasons people are turning to food banks to feed themselves, and you can now be sanctioned for up to three years. This is forcing people to make the choice between heating their homes or eating.

Join us in a day of action against the YMCA’s use of workfare. Tell them what you think about them using forced unpaid work in their charity shops. Don’t let them ignore the devastating effect that sanctions are having on people up and down the country.

Facebook: YMCA England

Twitter: @YMCA_England 

Phone them on 020 7186 9500 or their shops hotline on 0845 601 0728.

Find contact details of your nearest YMCA shop here

But please note: Whilst it’s well worth trying to speak to a manager or senior individual if possible please bear in mind most people taking calls/emails will be low paid retail/admin staff and could even be on workfare themselves. Be aware that is an offence to make telephone calls or send communications which are threatening, indecent or offensive."

Bedroom Tax Loophole Confirmed!

THE Department of Work & Pensions (DWP) has now confirmed a ‘bedroom tax’ loophole for long standing tenants. 

A legal loophole which makes long standing housing benefit claimants exempt from the ‘bedroom tax’ has been confirmed by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

Yesterday the DWP has issued a circular (HB U1 2014) to local authorities which stated that size criteria rules should not have been applied to tenants who have had a continuous claim for housing benefit, and have occupied the same property, since at least 1 January 1996. It is understood to have been identified because the ‘eligible rent’ referred to in bedroom tax regulations does not apply prior to 1 January 1996, when a previous set of rules existed. The ruling means that affected tenants will be able to apply to their local authority to have their claim reassessed under the correct rules and will be able to receive money backdated to April 2013 regardless of how many bedrooms are in the home.

Those who might benefit from the loophole include:
•Tenants receiving housing benefit who are under pension age, who have lived at the same address since 1996, and who have been in receipt of housing benefit throughout that time (with any break in housing benefit not exceeding four weeks);

•Tenants who may have ‘inherited’ a claim for housing benefit from family members living at the same property, provided that the current claimant has resided at the property since 1996 and provided that both the original and the current claimant, between them, have sustained a continuous claim throughout with any break not exceeding four weeks. Social landlords trying to identify cases who might benefit from this have been urged to keep an eye on DWP information. The department has said that it will amend regulations so that any award will only last up to the point that new regulations come into effect.

CIH director of policy and practice Gavin Smart said:
'It’s important that social landlords are aware of the loophole and take steps to make sure tenants are aware of it too so they are able to obtain reimbursement if they fall into this category.  However, they also need to keep an eye on the information issued by the DWP as the loophole is likely to be closed – the bulletin states the department will be taking steps to ‘remedy’ it shortly. Local authorities are likely to face significant administrative challenges in identifying the tenants affected, but social landlords may be able to help with this as they may have records that go back further.'

From Sylvia Wilson of Homes under Threat Campaign

Bedroom Tax: High Court decision today

THE High Court is to rule on whether cuts to housing benefit for social housing residents with spare bedrooms discriminates against disabled people.

Lawyers for 10 families brought a judicial review over the 'bedroom tax' in May this year.  They say the change breaches their clients' human rights because they need the extra space for health reasons.  The families, all disabled or the parents of disabled children, challenged the changes during a three-day hearing. 

The claimants are represented by three law firms and are from various places including London, Stoke-on-Trent, Manchester and Birmingham.  Their lawyers argued the benefit cut violated the Human Rights Act and Equality Act. 

Ugo Hayter from Leigh Day, which is representing two of the claimants said the legislation was "unfair" and had 'disproportionate negative consequences on disabled people and is therefore discriminatory'.

The lawyers also said the £25m the government has made available to councils to make discretionary payments to help disabled people affected by the benefit cuts is insufficient.

The government says the benefit changes were intended to reduce a £21bn annual housing benefit bill and encourage greater mobility in the social rented sector.  The Department of Work and Pensions said it was confident the measures were lawful and do not discriminate against disabled claimants or those with shared care of children. 

At the time of the High Court case, a DWP spokesman said it was 'only right' to bring back fairness to the system and pointed out there were 'two million households on the social housing waiting list and over a quarter of a million tenants... living in overcrowded homes'. 

The DWP added that an extra £150m in total has been made available to councils' funding for vulnerable claimants.
However, the National Housing Federation said earlier this month that the consequences of the change were worse than feared.  Rent arrears have soared in some areas while larger houses are lying empty as people refuse to move into them, it claimed. 

Vulnerable Jobseekers Targeted for Benefit Sanctions by Jobcentre Plus!

A whistleblower working for Jobcentre Plus, has told the Guardian newspaper that vulnerable claimants looking for work are being targeted for benefit sanctions by jobcentre staff in order to meet government welfare targets.

Statistics from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), show that the number of people being losing their benefits has risen rapidly since the beginning of of 2010 to 75,000 in October. The figures also show that the number of claimants with registered disabilities who have lost their benefits during the same period, has more than doubled to almost 20,000.

The whistleblower('K'),told the Guardian that staff working at his jobcentre, were told to target three people a week for sanctioning where benefits can be suspended for up six months. He told the newspaper:

"Suddenly you`re not helping somebody into sustainable employment, which is what you`re employed to do...You`re looking for ways to trick your customers into not looking for work. You come up with many ways. I've seen dyslexic customers given written jobsearches, and when they don`t produce them - what a surprise - they`re sanctioned. The only target that anyone seems to care about is stopping people`s money..."

He told the newspaper that young claimants are a major target for sanctioning because 'they haven`t been there long enough'. So are the uneducated and people of low educational attainment who are seen as 'easy to exploit' by Jobcentre Plus staff. People who are reluctant to diversify are also seen as an easy target. An electrician or a plumber may not want to work in a call centre he said, and they will be told to apply for these types of jobs. When they don`t their benefit is stopped for six months. He added:

"We were told suddenly that (finding someone to sanction) once a week wasn't good enough, we were far behind other offices, and we went to a meeting where they compared us with other offices, and said we now have to do three a week to catch up. Most staff go into work and they`re thinking about it from moment one - who am I going to stop this week?"

The DWP denied that they were targeting vulnerable jobseekers saying this was ridiculous.But The Guardian has seen email evidence of the referral targets of one office and the issues of targets has been raised by DWP employees on online forums.

The Citizens Advice Bureau have reported a significant rise in the number of claimants who have had their benefits cuts. In South Tyneside where there is 13% unemployment, caseworker, Andy Robertson, has a huge pile of paperwork for appeals which has more than doubled in the last year. He told the newspaper: "Clients seem to be getting sanctioned for next to nothing".