Forum Home → Discussion → Conditionality and sanctions → Thread
6.9% of UC claimants sanctioned and 71% of those just for missing WFI
New statistics from DWP show that while JSA and ESA rates of sanction are decreasing, UC sanctions are going up - increase from 3.4% to 6.9% in last quarter!!
The DWP’s explanation for the high percentage sanctioned for missing WFIs is -
[ Edited: 15 Nov 2017 at 11:03 am by Daphne ]A major difference between sanctions policy for UC compared to JSA is that under UC, where a claimant fails to attend a Work Coach meeting they can be sanctioned. Under JSA, claimants would receive a sanction, or have their claim terminated if they did not make contact within 5 working days of their failure. This is not appropriate for UC as claimants may be in receipt of other parts of UC, such as housing and child care, which would not be subject to a sanction and so they would remain on benefit.
Well shall I be the first to state the obvious: rent and child allowances wouldn’t be sanctioned on JSA either. That’s no kind of excuse - pathetic attempt to hoodwink, didn’t they realise how quickly they would be rumbled?
And furthermore, surely this just serves to highlight that the previous system, where a combination of sanctions and disallowances were used as a complex punitive regime designed to disentitle people from financial support, was UNDER represented in the pure ‘sanctions’ statistics??
But I thought that UC sanctions would be for a value equal to the personal allowance rather than only affecting the personal allowance itself? In that case UC sanctions could potentially affect other elements, such as the housing element.
Have I got the wrong end of the stick here?
I see it the same as you Owen - the UC award isn’t split into amounts for housing/children etc - you just get sanctioned an amount equivalent to personal allowance - and note that if you’re a jobseeker it’s still a sanction of 100% of your standard allowance even if only for missing WFI
No you haven’t Owen, politicians speak with forked tongue.
Glad to hear that (though I wish I was wrong!).
Yes but this is a publication by the department’s stats team! Surely they should be getting these things correct? (though of course they’d be likely to present any stats in a way that puts them in the best possible light)
Complain to the NSO?
I contacted the department and the UK Statistics Authority about this. DWP have responded as follows:
Thank you for e-mail. We have looked at the statement in the document you mention below and although we believe it is accurate we accept that it could have been clearer. We have now expanded the explanation to clarify. The statement now reads
“A major difference between sanctions policy for UC compared to JSA is that under UC, where a claimant fails to attend a Work Coach meeting they can be sanctioned. Under JSA, claimants would receive a sanction, or have their claim terminated if they did not make contact within 5 working days of their failure. This is not appropriate for UC as claimants may be in receipt of other parts of UC, such as housing and child care, which would not be subject to a sanction and so they would remain on benefit. A sanction reduces a claimant’s Universal Credit award by an amount never more than their standard allowance element entitlement only. However, depending on the claimant’s circumstances, such as other deductions, the overall Universal Credit payment could be reduced to nil.”.
The statement itself is not intended to be explanation of the trends or the precise reason why there are differences between Universal Credit (UC) and legacy benefits. It is meant to be explanation of the policy differences that users should be aware if they do make comparisons between the two.
I fail to see how this draconian use of sanctions can possibly be “helping record numbers of people into work and keeping them in work for longer”.
What happened to the “yellow card” idea which was being discussed not long ago. The current approach appears to still be to sanction first, ask the relevant questions (much) later. (I.E. at tribunal stage)
Near zero evidence supporting sanctions as a thing which propels people into work. Plenty on this at https://gmwrag.wordpress.com/2017/07/28/gmwrag-at-plp-conference-north-on-benefit-sanctions-and-the-rule-of-law/