homeless
This article titled “Landlord threatens mass evictions ahead of universal credit rollout” was written by Jessica Elgot, for theguardian.com on Wednesday 15th November 2017 15.27 UTC
A Lincolnshire property company has threatened all of its tenants with eviction if they fail to pay their rent because of delays in receiving universal credit payments, sending all tenants pre-emptive notices ahead of the rollout of the welfare reform.
The letter from GAP Property in Grimsby was highlighted by Jeremy Corbyn in his weekly clash with Theresa May at prime minister’s questions. Corbyn said tenants of the property management company faced the prospect of being made homeless before Christmas. May said she would look into the “particular case” raised by the Labour leader.
ADVERTISING
GAP Property said the changes would affect the vast majority of its tenants and it needed to take action to avoid a slew of rent arrears.
Universal credit is due to be rolled out across north-east Lincolnshire from 13 December and new applicants will have a minimum six-week wait for their first payments, though many have reported longer delays.
What is universal credit?
Universal credit is the supposed flagship reform of the benefits system, rolling together six benefits (including unemployment benefit, tax credits and housing benefit) into one, online-only system. The theoretical aim, for which there was general support across the political divide, was to simplify the benefits system and increase the incentives for people to work, rather than stay on benefits.
How long has it been around?
The project was legislated for in 2011 under the auspices of its most vocal champion, Iain Duncan Smith. The plan was to roll it out by 2017. However, a series of management failures, expensive IT blunders and design faults have seen it fall at least five years behind schedule.
What is the biggest problem?
There is a minimum 42-day wait for a first payment endured by new claimants when they move to universal credit (in practice this is often up to 60 days). For many low-income claimants, who lack savings, this in effect leaves them without cash for six weeks. The well-documented consequences for claimants of this are rent arrears (leading in some cases to eviction), hunger (food banks in universal credit areas report striking increases in referrals), use of expensive credit, and mental distress.
ADVERTISING
inRead invented by Teads
Are there other problems?
Plenty. Landlords are worried about the level of rent arrears racked up by tenants on universal credit. Unchecked, this will lead to a spike in evictions. Claimants complain that universal credit is bafflingly complex, unreliable, and difficult to manage, particularly if you are without internet access. Multibillion-pound cuts to work allowances imposed by the former chancellor George Osborne mean universal credit is far less generous than originally envisaged. According to the Resolution Foundation thinktank, about 2.5m low-income working households will be more than £1,000 a year worse off when they move on to universal credit.
The letter from the agency, seen by the Guardian, says it is “not intended to cause alarm, rather to inform you of the problems that could very well occur during the rollout of universal credit”.
It calls the flagship welfare reform “an extraordinary event that requires both you and us to take extraordinary measures”.
It tells tenants: “GAP Property cannot sustain arrears at the potential levels universal credit could create (this affects the vast majority of our tenants), therefore we find it necessary to issue your Notice Seeking Possession … that has been enclosed to be exercised only in the event that you fail to pay your rent in accordance with the terms of your tenancy (in full and on the due date).”
The letter warns tenants will face eviction if there is a delay in payment to the landlord. “IF YOU DO NOT PAY YOUR RENT WE WILL HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO ASK YOU TO LEAVE AND RECOVER LOSSES FROM YOUR GUARANTOR,” it writes, in capital letters.
The letter also includes a formal notice of possession as well as a guide to universal credit for tenants.
The company’s website says the agency was established more than 30 years ago by Guy Piggott, chair of the local Humber Landlords Association, with a “wide range of properties from rooms in shared houses, flats, to five-bedroom detached houses”.
Quoting from the letter during PMQs, Corbyn said: “Will the prime minister pause universal credit so it can be fixed? Or does she think it is right to put thousands of families through Christmas in the trauma of knowing they are about to be evicted because they are in rent arrears because of universal credit?”
In response, May said she wanted to “look at the issue of this particular case” but said the government wanted people to be able to manage their own budgets.
“There have been concerns raised over the issue of people being able to manage their budgets to pay rent,” she said. “What we see after four months is that those on universal credit in rent arrears has fallen by one-third.”
Posted by jeffrey davies on 17 November 2017
==================================
jeffs posts
The DWP is yet again showing its contempt for the law by issuing guidance aimed at ensuring that as few claimants as possible benefit from a court decision on safety and supervision.
Ignored decision
As we explained in DWP starts search for PIP claimants entitled to more, back in March 2017 the DWP lost a vital upper tribunal case relating to safety and supervision.
Until then, the DWP had argued that a claimant could only score points for being unsafe if harm was likely to occur on more than 50% of the occasions on which they attempted an activity.
However, in March a panel of upper tribunal judges held that the decision maker should look at whether there is a real possibility that harm might occur and also at how great the harm might be. The greater the potential harm, the less likely it needs to be that it would happen on any specific occasion.
After a disgraceful 7 month delay during which the DWP ignored the ruling, new guidance was issued to health professionals and decision makers last week, ostensibly to comply with the court ruling.
The DWP also announced that they wold be looking back through cases decided since the ruling to decide if awards should be changed.
In reality, however, the DWP have interpreted the ruling in the narrowest possible way and given a very strong indication to decision makers that they expect very little change in the way cases are decided.
Looking for excuses
It is clear that decision makers are being encouraged to trawl through all a claimant’s activities in an attempt to find any excuse for not awarding points. They are advised in new guidance:
“As always it is important to assess the consistency of the evidence. Key pieces of information could include whether they see specialists or have medical input which would support the frequency or severity of incident. It may also be helpful to consider if the claimant is able to undertake activities (such as cycling, swimming, working in a hazardous environment or taking young children out of the house alone), where the severity of harm could be grave.”
In fact, the question is not whether the claimant undertakes activities but whether they can do so in a manner unlikely to cause harm to the claimant or to another person, either during or after completion of the activity.
A claimant might have absolutely no choice but to take a small child to nursery or the doctors, for example, because they are a single parent or because their partner works. The fact that they have done so even repeatedly does not mean that it is safe. If, as the DWP say, the severity of harm could be grave then the likelihood of it happening need only be small for points to be awarded.
There is also the real possibility that a person working in a hazardous environment may be receiving supervision from colleagues to keep them safe. And it can reasonably be argued that anyone who goes swimming in a leisure centre will be being supervised by a trained lifeguard.
Nothing changes
The new guidance to decision makers gives 5 examples of claimants who might be affected by the court ruling.
We’ve listed the five examples below and set out what effect the change in the law will have on awards, according to the DWP. You can download the guidance for full details.
Example 1
The claimant has severe learning disabilities and does not have an awareness of danger. The claimant already met descriptors based on safety before the court decision, so their points remain the same. No change of award.
Example 2
The claimant has diabetes with hypoglycaemic events which at their most severe can cause them to lose consciousness. None of the descriptors are met on safety grounds because they have warning symptoms. No change of award.
Example 3
The claimant has narcolepsy events which cause them to lose consciousness. The claimant has their condition under control due to changes in diet, exercise and medication. No change of award.
Example 4
The claimant has absence seizures, without warning, trigger or pattern, up to a few of times a day, which involve them losing focus and entering a trance like state. They do not fall and take reasonable precautions by using safe crossings when making journeys. No change of award.
Example 5
The claimant has epilepsy with tonic-clonic seizures. There are no warning symptoms or triggers and the incidents can happen at any time of the day. There are no warning symptoms or triggers and the incidents can happen at any time of the day. When the clamant has a seizure their body will become stiff and then their arms and legs will start twitching. They may drop any items they are holding and will fall from a standing position. Incidents happen once per week on average.
Points awarded on safety grounds for daily living:
Preparing food. 1 (c) 2 points
Washing and bathing. 4 (c) 2 points
The claimant is awarded 4 additional points for daily living. This does not meet the minimum of 8 points for an award.
Planning and following journeys. No points are awarded as the claimant can take precautions by using safe crossings.
The result is: No change of award.
A nod’s as good as a wink
The DWP say they are expecting 10,000 claimants to benefit as a result of the change to the law, we think it should be a great many more. Yet, out of five examples given to decision makers, in not one case does the change in the law result in a change in award.
It would be a very obtuse decision maker indeed who did not get the message that the DWP do not expect them to make any real changes to their decision making as a result of the upper tribunal ruling.
Tribunals, we can only hope, will take a very different view.
Posted by jeffrey davies on 15 November 2017
