Benefits campaign groups have hit out at the news that Universal Credit sanctions are “back with a vengeance”, as MPs said the number of claimants hit has risen by two and a half times.
A debate on the Department of Work and Pensions' (DWP) policy on benefit sanctions last month heard that Jobcentres have been told to “up their game” and increase the number of sanctions they are handing to those receiving out-of-work benefits. And one MP said he had even heard that there was inter-office competition, with DWP offices pushing each other to achieve higher sanction rates.
During the debate, secured by SNP MP Chris Stephens, MPs learned that in the last quarter, the number of sanctions was 250% higher than in the three months before the pandemic, with 2.5% of claimants being sanctioned each month compared to 1.4% prior to 2020. The number of Universal Credit claimants who were serving a sanction in August was 115,274, after a peak of 117,999 in July. That is more than three times the pre-pandemic peak of 36,771 in October 2019, the benefits sanctions debate heard.
Read more: Universal Credit claimants sanctioned by DWP can now ask for their money back
Mr Stephens told his colleagues: "Different offices’ statistics are compared, pushing for higher sanction and deferral rates. Sanctions appear to be back with a vengeance”
In June 2022, £34 million was taken from claimants by way of sanctions, in July £34.9 million and in August, over £36 million.
Benefitsandwork.co.uk, a website which advises people how to claim and retain benefits, said: "This is a massive increase even allowing for the increased number of UC claimants. It amounts to 2.5% of claimants being sanctioned each month compared to 1.4% before the pandemic. Clearly sanctions are saving the DWP a significant amount of cash."
In the commons debate, Labour MP Beth Winter called for the end to "the full-frontal attack on Universal Credit recipients that must end", saying the latest sanctions were worth, on average, £262 a month, nearly a third of the average UC payment.
DWP minister Guy Opperman, who is MP for Hexham, Northumberland, stated that 98.2% of sanctions are for missing a meeting with a work coach, but did not address questions as to why twice as many claimants were now missing appointments. He denied that there had been a change of sanctions policy and that he was “not aware” of any sanctions regime that incentivised DWP staff to apply sanctions.
Benefits and Work reported that claimants could be sanctioned for refusing to take a zero hours contract even if they already had a secure job, but for fewer hours, or if an appointment was created by a job coach on their journal at a time when the claimant had no data on their phone and no money to buy any. By the time they could afford additional data and saw the appointment, they had already missed it and been sanctioned.
Another organisation, Disability News Service, also agreed with Mr Stephens claims that disabled claimants were being “thrown into a group of those most likely to get a sanction”, saying it had reported in March how a DWP whistleblower had warned that harsh new policies that were forcing more disabled people to attend weekly face-to-face Jobcentre meetings could lead to benefit claimants taking their own lives.
Mr Opperman was unavailable for comment, but a DWP spokesperson said: “Our priority is to help people to find and stay in work and the latest figures show the majority of sanctions were applied due to claimants failing to attend mandatory appointments with their work coach. People are only sanctioned if they fail, without good reason, to meet the conditions they agree, and emphasis is placed on protecting vulnerable claimants. If a claimant disagrees with a sanction, they can ask for this to be reconsidered and can appeal to an independent tribunal.”
Chroniclelive has previously reported on former NHS worker Errol Livingstone, of Gateshead, who was living on vegetable juice and unable to use his oven after being sanctioned when he did not attend a course. Mr Livingstone, who appealed against the sanction, said the shortfall caused him extreme hardship at a time when the cost of living was already putting a strain on his budget. He lost £11 per day for eight days, a total of £88, from his monthly payment of £319.84.
Mr Livingstone said he was under the impression that he didn't have to attend the course due to his experience in recruitment and was later told he should have been there. "The sanctions don't give you any right to reply or respond to the accusations, they are just imposed on you," he said. "I go on my Universal Credit journal every day and one day I noticed that the sanction had been imposed. There's no communication or no way you can defend yourself. It's an awful system. "I appealed and then noticed some weeks later that there was an update that my appeal had been upheld and the money would be repaid.There was no apology or explanation."
The DWP announced at the end of last year that some Universal Credit claimants who have paid back hardship loans in the last seven years might be able to get some of their money back. A hardship payment is emergency money given to claimants to help them meet their essential costs when their benefit has been cut because of a sanction or penalty for fraud. The DWP said it is reviewing the loans from January 2014 to January 2021 , in the light of concerns that people were made to pay them back when they couldn't afford to do so.
Now read:
- All the big money changes to look out for in 2023 month by month
- How to get help if you’re struggling with the cost of food - including voucher schemes
- How to work out how much your heating costs per hour
- How to defrost the condensate pipe on your boiler in 4 easy steps
- Heating on all the time or not? Martin Lewis answers age-old question
