Pilot Areas

I was at a meeting yesterday where DWP stated that in the pilot areas they have moved on from the initial single person , no kids , no housing costs cases when there has been a change of circs. They said they have numerous cases where ’ families ’ were now receiving UC. Has anybody in the pilot areas any knowledge of how this is working ?

I’m in one of the pilot areas, but none of our clients yet are families claiming UC. I will post when we encounter one!

Apparently, the next area to become a “Pathfinder” is Hammersmith from 28th October.  It is not clear that there is going to be another one before Xmas.  An order was put before Parliament on Tuesday which named Inverness and Rugby as starting on 25th November, but that was mysteriously “pulled” the following day!

There is no widening of the claimant criteria, but given that the “lobster pot” principle applies (once you’re in UC you can’t get out), there must be some procedure for dealing with families emerging due to CoC’.

I’ve heard rumours of at least one family now on UC, although I don’t have any direct involvement so can’t comment any further. No numbers at all have been produced for UC claimants yet so I have no idea where the evidence is for ‘numerous’ families.

Acccording to Jean Cooling, Head of Stakeholder and Partner Management, Department for Work and Pensions, at yesterday’s NHF Welfare Reform conference the new locations are not pathfinders but ‘the start of the national roll-out’.

Her slides also said that the IT is ‘working as planned’ and that the timetable is on-track.

I did not find her persuasive.  Nor did the rest of the audience, particularly after she looked at one slide and said:

“Jam-jar accounts.  I had to ask what those were, do you all know?”

She is in charge of working with local authorities to deliver support to vulnerable people.

I am confused!

The Welfare Reform Act 2012 (Commencement No 13 and Transitional and Transitory Provisions)Order 2013 (2013 no 2657) makes provision for the abolition on ESA(IR) (and JSA(IB) in parts of West London (Hammersmith) and parts of Manchester from 28 October 2013.

So, does that mean that when the pilot in Hammersmith starts, it will accept claims from a wider client group than the current pilots (which base their clients on The Universal Credit (Transitional provisions) Regs 2013)?

This would mean that Hammersmith will take claims from new ‘single jobseekers ...’, but also single people who would have claimed ESA were they not in Hammersmith?

Ideas please??

Thanks
Amy

I take it to mean that income related ESA and JSA are abolished but this will only continue to apply to those claimants who satisfy the Pathfinder status.  Therefore ESA will still be claimed in these areas as they cannot fit Pathfinder status and so will JSA for those who are not of Pathfinder status.

Yet again I could be horribly wrong and I am not betting any money on it.

Shaun

Thanks Sean!

I wouldn’t put money on anything to do with UC…

Odd though, as no ESA-ers in those two areas could fit current pathfinder requirements, so why abolish ESA(IR)? Perhaps they are thinking about people who get into the pilot as a jobseeker, and then become unwell what with the stress of it all?!

Amy

amy swinnerton - 18 October 2013 02:19 PM

Odd though, as no ESA-ers in those two areas could fit current pathfinder requirements, so why abolish ESA(IR)? Perhaps they are thinking about people who get into the pilot as a jobseeker, and then become unwell what with the stress of it all?!

Amy

Hi Amy!

That’s right : the Pathfinder group definition is just as narrow as before. So the abolition of ESA(IR) for this group would only directly affect someone who succesfully claimed UC and then became unwell.

(Article 4 of the No.13 order - abolishing JSA(IB) and ESA(IR) - is basically the same as art. 4 of the No.9 order for the North West Pathfinders).

Thanks Jon - it all makes sense now!

Sorry - did I just say that about Universal Credit?

Amy