Forum Home → Discussion → Universal credit migration → Thread
‘Move To UC’
Wait a minute…...
DWP will deal with claimants it knows well.
It will discuss UC with them in advance and issue a Migration Notice when they are ready for it.
It will support them in making claims.
In what way does this test a system that will not work this way when imposed upon millions of claimants who won’t receive this gold-plated service?
In what way does it test how to assist vulnerable claimants to avoid them losing money under managed migration?
This looks as if it’s being set up to be yet another brilliant UC ‘success’.
In what way does this test a system that will not work this way when imposed upon millions of claimants who won’t receive this gold-plated service?
In what way does it test how to assist vulnerable claimants to avoid them losing money under managed migration?
This looks as if it’s being set up to be yet another brilliant UC ‘success’.
And Hardship Payments are repayable loans. How exactly does that mimic non-repayable ‘run-ons’?
The discretionary hardship payment in the managed migration regs are non-repayable - inserted reg 64 in The Universal Credit (Managed Migration Pilot and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019
The discretionary hardship payment in the managed migration regs are non-repayable - inserted reg 64 in The Universal Credit (Managed Migration Pilot and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019
OK I follow that but reg 64. only provides for discretionary hardship payments. That is not what is stated in Neil Couling’s letter - discretion does not mimic the intended statutory entitlement to a run-on. Neil being disingenuous in his UC spin yet again?
To be fair, in this particular case I think they’ve been quite up front about it. Basically, the computer system will not be ready to implement the run-ons until next year, so they said that until that time they will provide the run-ons for ALL claimants being managed migrated by way of the discretionary payments. So no statutory entitlement, but a commitment to use their discretion, which they seem to be keeping to.
To be fair, in this particular case I think they’ve been quite up front about it. Basically, the computer system will not be ready to implement the run-ons until next year, so they said that until that time they will provide the run-ons for ALL claimants being managed migrated by way of the discretionary payments. So no statutory entitlement, but a commitment to use their discretion, which they seem to be keeping to.
But to me it is a further demonstration of the shambolic implementation of UC that the IT system was not ready to implement the policy of a statutory run-ons payment as part of managed migration (or the policy of managed migration was started before the IT is ready) such that a ‘stop gap’ use of a discretionary payment which will not be discretionary in practice if it is paid to ALL claimants (although I doubt anyone will be minded to challenge the failure to exercise that discretion).
It does raise the possibility that that discretion may be exercised in the future (for example when managed migration starts in another Jobcentre area) or more likely the payment it is not included in awards due to admin. error and as it will not be a statutory entitlement it may be more difficult to rectify its absence (due to the usual problems dealing with UC).
I maintain the overriding point is that this is a an easy-peasy version of a system which will not work in this manner when unleashed in full.
1/ Design easy-peasy ‘test’
2/ Test works amazingly well, wonder how that happened
3/ Announce total success
4/ Unleash the full scheme on the back of this success
5/ Maintain claims of total success as things fall apart and people suffer
But to me it is a further demonstration of the shambolic implementation of UC that the IT system was not ready to implement the policy of a statutory run-ons payment as part of managed migration (or the policy of managed migration was started before the IT is ready) such that a ‘stop gap’ use of a discretionary payment which will not be discretionary in practice if it is paid to ALL claimants (although I doubt anyone will be minded to challenge the failure to exercise that discretion).
It does raise the possibility that that discretion may be exercised in the future (for example when managed migration starts in another Jobcentre area) or more likely the payment it is not included in awards due to admin. error and as it will not be a statutory entitlement it may be more difficult to rectify its absence (due to the usual problems dealing with UC).
Yes, can’t argue with this…
To my mind the “Move to UC” debate is now complicated by the fact that the “bad guys” have now developed a rather successful scam (for said baddies) exploiting the problems of the gap in payments/verification etc. They are presumably trying to avoid all this as part of the pilot, (“Hi I am undertaking a pilot in the area” sounds like a opening line from a scammer) but of course it is now getting more complicated and costlier.
Just my view.
I agree.
As part of their preparations for managed migration, DWP need to decide how to prevent the scammers getting to the vulnerable claimants first. Their response to existing scams has been both shocking and inadequate.
a discretionary payment which will not be discretionary in practice if it is paid to ALL claimants ...
It will be offered to all, but claimants are free to decline.