Forum Home → Discussion → Work capability issues and ESA → Thread
Benefit Safeguards Guidance
forum member
Welfare Rights Service, Greenwich Council, London
Total Posts: 211
Joined: 8 August 2012
These relate to use of IRG to identify vulnerability
File Attachments
- Incapacity_Reference_Guide_Group_listing.pdf (File Size: 72KB - Downloads: 2636)
- IRG_Alphabetical_Listing_7.9.16.pdf (File Size: 789KB - Downloads: 2906)
- Using_Incapacity_Reference_Guide_(IRG)_7.9.16.pdf (File Size: 91KB - Downloads: 3012)
forum member
Welfare Rights Service, Greenwich Council, London
Total Posts: 211
Joined: 8 August 2012
This is the DWP approach to vulnerability which sets out the new approach and move away from the safeguarding definition of vulnerability
File Attachments
- DWP_Approach_to_Vulnerability.pdf (File Size: 188KB - Downloads: 3142)
forum member
Welfare Rights Service, Greenwich Council, London
Total Posts: 211
Joined: 8 August 2012
This extract goes through the current safeguarding procedures for ESA with extensive references to the guidance. I have not included sections on Universal Credit as, due to difficulties getting an FOI response, the guidance is much less certain.
Have taken this extract from the more detailed document Greenwich submitted to the PAC sanctions enquiry - those interested in policy issues relating to safeguards may like to take a look, see the links here: http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/9149/#49583
File Attachments
- ESA_safeguarding_guidance_extract.docx (File Size: 23KB - Downloads: 3494)
forum member
Disability Advice & Welfare Network
Total Posts: 61
Joined: 10 June 2015
Hi, I’m trying to find information regarding possible safeguarding?
A claimant has been found fit for work, however she does not want to work. The claimant has decided to apply for IS and CA in respect of her daughter, who has a LD. I have explained that her daughter will lose some of her benefit (on IR ESA). The claimant is the Appointee and said her daughter will not mind. I am struggling to find anything in relation to best interests, MC (mental capacity) or Safeguarding. I feel that the claimant is attempting to influence a financial decision, and using a vulnerable person for financial gain. Any advice appreciated.
forum member
Mental health & welfare rights service - Wolverhampton City Council
Total Posts: 2262
Joined: 15 October 2012
Wensleyfoss - 06 March 2017 06:11 AMHi, I’m trying to find information regarding possible safeguarding?
A claimant has been found fit for work, however she does not want to work. The claimant has decided to apply for IS and CA in respect of her daughter, who has a LD. I have explained that her daughter will lose some of her benefit (on IR ESA). The claimant is the Appointee and said her daughter will not mind. I am struggling to find anything in relation to best interests, MC (mental capacity) or Safeguarding. I feel that the claimant is attempting to influence a financial decision, and using a vulnerable person for financial gain. Any advice appreciated.
Are you sure that the child is in receipt of the SDP?
If so you need to discuss it with their local Social Services team and see whether they think it meets the threshold for Adult Safeguarding.
forum member
Disability Advice & Welfare Network
Total Posts: 61
Joined: 10 June 2015
Hi Dan
The daughter is 21, so you think it is safeguarding
forum member
Welfare Rights Service, Greenwich Council, London
Total Posts: 211
Joined: 8 August 2012
The most recent version of the UC WPP safeguarding guidance. This is v3.0 2017. The last version I posted was v1.0 so I missed v2.0. There are some significant changes from the previous version although it just means that it now aligns with the ESA WPP guidance. Although there are no new referrals to the Work Programme existing participants will remain with their provider so it will continue to be relevant for the next couple of years.
File Attachments
- WPP_guidance_v3_2017.pdf (File Size: 261KB - Downloads: 2635)
forum member
Welfare Rights Service, Greenwich Council, London
Total Posts: 211
Joined: 8 August 2012
Universal Credit guidance from the most recent round of FOIs. No other guidance referring to core visits or home visits was released (including the home visits guidance lodged with the Lords library: http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2016-0778/Corrected_Home_visits_V2.0.pdf).
File Attachments
- 7-Provider_sanctionable_failure_referrals..pdf (File Size: 58KB - Downloads: 2548)
- Providers_such_as_the_Work_Programme_raise_potential_sanctionable_failures_353.pdf (File Size: 139KB - Downloads: 2761)
forum member
Welfare Rights Service, Greenwich Council, London
Total Posts: 211
Joined: 8 August 2012
Here’s my attempt at a summary of the UC guidance based on the documents attached or linked to my last post. It’s worth taking with a pinch of salt as it’s not clear to me if the copy in the House of Lords’ library is still current. Even if currently correct I suspect it will change in future.
File Attachments
- Universal_Credit_DWP_safeguarding_extract.docx (File Size: 22KB - Downloads: 4635)
Thanks Owen - that’s really helpful :)
forum member
Welfare Rights Service, Greenwich Council, London
Total Posts: 211
Joined: 8 August 2012
I’ll also post this ‘fail to attend’ UC guidance here: http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2016-0778/Fail_to_attend_v6.0.pdf
I’d missed it but it was posted on another thread. It covers similar territory to a current ESA chapter that provides a strong set of safeguards for vulnerable claimants (attached).
This UC guidance uses the term ‘safeguarding’ and frequently refers to the complex needs guidance (which defines complex needs but does not set out any procedures to safeguard claimants with complex needs). As far as I can see the ‘Fail to attend’ guidance comes down to not cancelling the claims of those deemed to have complex needs as soon as they fail to attend certain appointments. The ‘fail to attend’ guidance does refer to certain failures to attend resulting in a sanction referral, I guess this would interact with the two sets of UC guidance I posted in the past few days.
File Attachments
- ESA_FTAFTP_in_a_WFI_Undertake_WRA_15.7.16.pdf (File Size: 354KB - Downloads: 2666)
forum member
Welfare Rights Service, Greenwich Council, London
Total Posts: 211
Joined: 8 August 2012
Hello all
There’s been an update to the ‘core visit referrals’ guidance, see attached. As far as I can see this introduces sections on Universal Credit into the guidance.
There are now sections on referring for Universal Credit. However, I get the strong impression that this document is a work in progress.
There is now a section on core visits for UC claimants who have missed a WCA. This applies to those ‘with a mental health condition, learning difficulties or are deemed vulnerable’. This section seems to have been copied and pasted from the ESA section (it refers to ESA part way through). There’s also a section on referrals for core visits for those who fail to attend a WFI.
I’ve not seen any other guidance that suggests that these processes are actually in place. I’ll do my best to track down any guidance on these issues.
Owen
File Attachments
- 1._Core_visit_referrals_.pdf (File Size: 230KB - Downloads: 2831)
forum member
Welfare Rights Service, Greenwich Council, London
Total Posts: 211
Joined: 8 August 2012
Some UC full service guidance, this just confirms that the House Of Lords ‘home visits’ document (originally dated October 16) was still relevant in June 17
[ Edited: 1 Aug 2017 at 01:13 pm by GWRS adviser ]File Attachments
- FOI_2222_reply.pdf (File Size: 133KB - Downloads: 2455)
forum member
Welfare Rights Service, Greenwich Council, London
Total Posts: 211
Joined: 8 August 2012
Disappointing response on the UC safeguarding visits listed in the UC Core Visits Referral guidance (see 24/5/17)
File Attachments
- Reply_IR288.pdf (File Size: 128KB - Downloads: 2517)
forum member
Welfare Rights Service, Greenwich Council, London
Total Posts: 211
Joined: 8 August 2012
Hello all
I’ve updated the Universal Credit guidance section of the safeguarding document in this thread to take account of a few recent FOIs: https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/9149/#53740