Members’
Meeting
20th November 2014
Agenda
10.00am Welcome and introductions followed by a Fincan Update
10.20 am Monkey – Fiona Christian
10.45 Quids In – Steve Faragher
11.15am Comfort Break
11.30am Moneywise/NUST – Andrew Breese
12.00am Sanctions – Andy Simblett, Sunderland Council
12.30pm Discussion Session
1.00pm
Close and lunch
Fincan Update
Alison Baxter
and
Paul Hillier
Mon-key Project
Fiona Christian
Big Lottery Fund Improving
Financial Confidence
Helping people become more
confident in and more aware of how
to take control of their finances
37 England Projects
In the North East:
•
Know Your Money: Erimus Housing,
Middlesbrough
•
Stay Right, Start Right: Coast & Country,
Redcar and Cleveland
•
Monkey: livin, County Durham
Monkey Partners
livin Housing
Derwentside Homes
East Durham Homes
Teesdale H A
Dale and Valley Homes
Cestria Housing
The Riverside Group
Durham City Homes
Home Group
Centrepoint
DISC
NEFirst Credit Union
Prince Bishops Cmty Bank
SHAID
Moving On (Durham)
ROC Solid
Citizens Advice Cty Durham
Why Monkey?
Outcomes
Greater access to affordable credit, services and products
for social housing tenants when set up a new home
Raise capability and confidence of social housing tenants /
applicants in using financial products and services
Social housing providers delivering financial confidence
messages directly to those in most need
Improve the consistency of services across County
Durham through sharing information, services, capturing
learning, staff training and feedback from beneficiaries
How Monkey Delivers
Coordinated assessment and referral system:
– Registration
– Needs assessment
– Needs match to appropriate services
– Referral or signpost to service
Development of new, complementary services:
– Affordable furniture project
– Save and Insure scheme
– Financial confidence training
– Debtology app?
Achievements
Nearly 700 people registered for Monkey support since March
One-third aged between 16 – 24
1,679 referral / signposting actions to specialist support
providers
684 - carpets and furniture suppliers
316 - fuel support
272 - benefit / debt advice
102 - credit union referrals
184 - insurance
www.monkey.uk.net
Fiona Christian, Project Manager
01388 424697
Fiona.christian@monkey.uk.net
Quids In
Steve Faragher
Break
Shelter
Sue Rose
Benefits Sanctions
Andy Simblett
Sunderland Council
Sunderland City Council : presentation title
Sanctions
18
The Stick people take
0. section title or leave blank
Sunderland City Council : presentation title
Sanctions and Conditionality
19
•What is ‘conditionality’ ?
•Conditionality is a set of tasks
a person claiming benefit is
fhfhfhf
obliged to meet
•If these conditions are not met one option is that a sanction
can be imposed
0.0 section title or leave blank
Sanctions
•Conditionality has been a longstanding feature of welfare benefit
entitlements in the UK.
20
•the severity of the sanctions has increased substantially since the
1980s.
•Some particular groups - notably lone parents, sick and disabled
people, offenders and some categories of migrants - have also
been targeted for specific conditionality measures.
•A series of social security reviews conducted by the Conservative
Government (1979–1997) led to the introduction of a ‘stricter
benefit regime’ from the late 1980s
Sanctions
•The incoming Labour Government in 1997 adopted a ‘work first’
and ‘work for all’ approach, embracing JSA’s monitoring of
claimants’ job search activities, backed up by benefit sanctions in
cases of non-compliance.
21
•An expansion in the reach of work-related conditionality to
previously exempt groups, with lone parents – previously subject
to ‘light’ if any conditionality – increasingly targeted
•Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) was introduced to
replace Incapacity Benefit (IB) and IS for sick and disabled
people, with this benefit embracing more conditional elements
(and the use of sanctions)
Statistical evidence on the use of sanctions within
welfare benefits
•Statistics on the rates of ‘referrals’ of JSA claimants for
sanctioning, and ‘adverse decisions’ resulting in actual sanctions,
indicate four phases over recent years:
22
•relative stability from 2000–2006;
•a pulse of increased referrals and sanctions through 2007 and
2008
•then an increasing use of referrals and sanctions after the
Coalition Government took up office in 2010
Statistical evidence on the use of sanctions within
welfare benefits
•finally, after dropping back in 2011, sanctions have surged
upwards to higher levels through 2012 and 2013
•Overall, monthly sanctions rates have risen from about 2 to 2.5
per cent of claimants in this earlier period, to around 3.5 per cent
in 2008,
•5 per cent in 2010–11,
23
•6 per cent by late 2013
• Actually peaking at 7.3 per cent in October 2013).
Sanctions
•A total of 12.22 million sanction decisions have been made
between April 2000 and June 2013 - of which, 5.51 million were
adverse decisions (i.e. a sanction
applied).
24
•53 per cent of adverse decisions under the new
sanctions regime were in the' Low’ group, 38 per cent in
the ‘Intermediate’ group, and 9 per cent in the ‘High
’group.
Sanctions
•Job Seekers Allowance sanctions decisions by Job Centre Plus
District and Group October 22nd 2012 – March 31st 2014
•Group North East there were 228,551 adverse ‘sanction’ decisions
in this period.
25
•District Durham and Tees Valley there were 41,637 adverse
sanction decisions in this period.
•District NE Yorkshire and Humber there were 41,880 adverse
sanctions decisions in this period.
Sanctions
•District Northumberland Tyne and Wear there were 39,645
adverse sanctions decisions in this period.
26
•District West Yorkshire there were 59,118 adverse sanctions
decisions in this period.
•District South Yorkshire 46,270 there were adverse sanctions
decisions in this period.
Sanctions
•Regional breakdown – Skills Conditionality North East
% of referrals that initially lead to adverse
decisions 47.5% ( Table 4 Independent review of The Operation of Jobseeker’s Allowance
sanctions validated by the Jobseekers Act July 2014 Matthew Oakley)
•Mandatory Work Activity , Work programme not known.
27
Types of Sanctions:
28
Higher
Intermediate
Lower
Types of Sanction JSA
•Higher-level sanctions can be applied if you fail to comply with
conditions relating to employment. For instance, you may be
sanctioned if you:
29
•lose your job through misconduct;
•leave you job voluntarily; or
•refuse to apply for a job that is offered to you.
Types of Sanction JSA
•Higher level sanction : Old regime sanction could be from 1
to 26 weeks: Period imposed could be challenged:
•New regime 13 weeks 1st failure,
30
•2nd Failure 26 weeks if within 52 weeks of the first failure
but not within two weeks of 1st failure.
•3rd Failure 156 weeks if within 52 weeks of 2nd failure but
not within 2 weeks of second failure.
Types of Sanction JSA
•Intermediate-level sanctions
•Intermediate-level sanctions can be applied if you fail to be
available for work or actively seeking work.
• or actively seeking work
•Previous regime disentitlement but no sanction.
•New regime post Oct 2012, 1st failure 4 weeks sanction loss
of entitlement.
•2nd Failure: If you have already had a sanction applied
within the last year (but not within the last two weeks), the
sanction will last for 13 weeks.
31
Sanctions Types JSA
•Lower level sanctions
•You may be sanctioned if you:
•do not take part in an interview with a personal adviser when
asked to do so;
32
•do not take up a place on a training scheme or employment
programme when one is offered to you; or
•lose a place on a training scheme or employment programme
through misconduct
Sanctions Types JSA
•How long the sanction is applied will depend on whether
you have had any other sanctions applied within the last
year.
•Old regime fixed:1,2,4, or 26 weeks. Sanction period could
be challenged.
•New regime post Oct 12
•If this is the first sanction, the sanction will last for four
weeks.
•If you have already had a sanction applied within the last
year (but not within the last two weeks), the sanction will
last for 13 weeks.
33
Sanction Types ESA
•Sanctioned if there is failure to attend/participate in mandatory
interviews or failure to undertake Work Related Activity
•Previous regime: open ended 50% Work Related activity
component for 4 weeks then 100% open ended. The open-ended
period will apply until you do meet the compliance condition in
question.
34
•New regime: In each case, ESA will be reduced by £72.40 (equal to
the personal allowance of ESA for a single person) for a period of
time. This period comes in two parts: one open ended, one fixed
•
Sanctions Types – ESA
•Period 1 week
•2 weeks if within a year of previous failure but not within 2 weeks
of failure.
35
•4 weeks if there is a second failure if within a year of previous
failure but not within 2 weeks of failure.
Preventing Sanctions: - tips
•In order to prevent sanctions happening its essential that people
who claim and their advisors have a good understanding of
‘conditionality’ and its scope.
36
•The Work and Pensions Committee for the second session report
2013 -2014 found that: There was too much emphasis on
fortnightly job-search reviews (FJRs) in comparison to the more in
depth work focused interviews. and
•That note should be taken of the other support mechanisms in
relation to the employment support interventions and
recommended in particular the Sector-based Work Academies
(SBWAs), which combine an eight-week work experience
placement with relevant pre-employment training and a
guaranteed job interview in sectors of the local economy with
high numbers of vacancies.
37
•it would be highly regrettable if the Claimant Commitment
resulted in a process-driven, box-ticking exercise in which
Jobcentre Advisers measure the length of time claimants spend
searching for jobs, regardless of the likely effectiveness of the
job-search activities undertaken”. and
Preventing Sanctions: - ) tips
•The Work and Pensions Committee also noted that ‘needs vary
between Jobcentres and are prone to missing crucial information
about complex barriers to employment’. and
38
• ‘The initial interview between claimant and Jobcentre Adviser, it
is stated, is focused largely on the requirements the claimant
must fulfil in order to remain in receipt of benefit. It is argued in
the Committee’s report that this risks overlooking important
issues with the work-readiness of the claimant and failure to
address these can lead to a longer than necessary period of
unemployment.’
Preventing Sanctions: - ) tips
•Work seekers and their advisors should enquire about the
options that are available in terms of support to get back into
work and try to move away from the routine fort nightly job
search reviews and express their interest in other options
39
•Advise the department of barriers that may inhibit their ability
to look for and take up a job or attend appointments. An Illness
or disability affecting them or the circumstances of another
person
Preventing Sanctions: - ) tips
•This should help in relation to work seeking commitments and in
the future if a situation arises where you cannot make an
interview for a reason connected with the restrictions you have.
E.g a hospital appointment, a doctors appointment or a job
interview
40
•Work seekers should also keep note of the time they travel and
any problems they have traveling if they anticipate or are running
late due to a transport problem. Use of a mobile phone if
available can be great to call JC+ , record through camera signs
and disruption, the time a bus or train arrives etcetera
•Newspaper reports of travel disruption or postal disruption are
also useful.
Preventing Sanctions: - ) tips
•Work seekers should keep in touch with JC+ and let them know
that they will not be able to make an appointment or interview.
Note the call and get a name of who was spoken to is
recommended. Send them appointment letters and ask for the
interview to be re-arranged.
41
•A written copy of an agreement should be provided to a work
seeker regarding what the aims and objectives of a work place
training placement are and how this will help them enhance
their chances of getting a job. (Basically: the ruling in the Pound
Land saga)
Challenging a sanctions decision
•Sanction decisions can be challenged
•In most cases it is worth challenging the decision. There are a
number of reasons for this.
•A mandatory reconsideration has to be requested. The request
must be made within one calendar month This means the
decision will be looked at again.
•If the decision is not revised then an appeal can be lodged. The
appeal must be made within one calendar month.
•If an appeal is lodged the Secretary of State must provide a
bundle of documents. The documentary evidence often throws
into question the decision.
•There is no defined definition in law of ‘good reason’
42
Challenging a sanctions decision
•Good cause is: “‘Good cause’ means, in my opinion, some fact
which, having regard to all the circumstances (including the
claimant’s state of health and the information which he had
received and that which he might have obtained) would probably
have caused a reasonable person of his age and experience to act
(or fail to act) as the claimant did.” This description of good cause
has been quoted in countless cases. Commissioners decision
R/S/2/63
43
•This year Sunderland City Council have successfully represented a
number of people at U.A.T. in relation to Sanction decisions
Appeals and other outcomes.
•SCCWRS successfully represented a man who was sanctioned for
allegedly limiting his work seeking. This was brought to his
attention and he was told that this was not enough. The client said
he couldn’t understand what was wrong. The other work seeking
agreements were requested and put into the bundle. The
previous 4 agreements all showed that the level of work seeking
under question had been agreed. The appeal was allowed.
• SCCWRS successfully represented a man who refused to apply for
jobs he was told to apply for. When making his initial enquiry’s
he was told the vacancies had been filled. It was admitted in the
bundle that the jobs had been filled when enquiry was made but
technically claimant had not complied with his job seekers
agreement. The tribunal chairman asked ‘why are we here’ and
allowed the appeal.
44
Appeals and other outcomes.
•SCCWRS successfully represented a client who left a job to take a
up another. Unfortunately he was informed the job he thought he
was going to ceased to exist due to his new employer having to
reduce its workforce. The client was sanctioned. Case law showed
that this was simply illegal and should not have happened The
appeal was allowed.
45
References
• http://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/sanctions
• http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/welfare-sanctions-and-conditionality-uk
• https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/jobseekers-allowance-and-employment-and-support-allowance-sanctions-decisions-made-to-march2014
• Independent review of the operation of Jobseeker’s Allowance sanctions validated by the Jobseekers Act 2013: by Matthew Oakley July 2014
• http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmworpen/479/479.pdf
46
Discussion Session
Close