Universal Credit is officially a shambles

Thanks for the link, GA. I have worked in the benefits system from time to time and yet achieved only 40% in the quiz to which there's a link in the article.

It certainly helps separate fact from some widely held myths!

In my experience there are very few people who choose to live a life on benefits. There are some who may appear to present in that way but they usually have mental health issues that make it unlikely they will ever be able to hold down a full time job. Pretending they dont care or dont want a job is a way to cling to a little self respect.

I realise that the Tories would like to kill off these people if they thought they could get away with it.

In reality most people on benefits go on and off benefits as they find work - short term contracts, zero hour contracts and other poorly paid work. They never have the luxury of enough cash to make provision for the next illness or losing one of those jobs.

There are unfortunately privileged people who are utterly selfish, lack compassion and have insufficient intelligence to recognise how fortunate they are and have been since birth. God help us when they form our government.

jocork, thank you for sharing your account of how you came to be on benefits and the inherent difficulties you experienced. Sadly those very, very few people who manage somehow to exploit the system seem to have become the stereotype, rather than the vast majority of people who are genuinely in need. Benefit fraud is a tiny percentage of the overall welfare bill, yet the myth persists that for most people being on benefits is a choice.
I know I keep going on about it, but please watch the film, 'I, Daniel Blake' for a true to life account of how difficult it is to negotiate the benefit system. If you don't have time to watch the film then you can read an article about it here:
www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/28/arrogance-poverty-social-housing-benefits-ken-loach-i-daniel-blake-unrealistic

Five years ago I lost my job in a school following a false allegation against me by two students. I was initially suspended on full pay but eventually realised that without adult witnesses or appropriately placed cctv cameras my chances of proving my innocence were low and I didn't really want to stay anyway so I resigned. I was unemployed for 3 months before eventually securing employment at a lower salary for longer hours! I now get tax credits which bring my earnings back to where I was in my old job but I still work more hours than I used to! While unemployed I was able to claim job seekers allowance but quickly realised that my requirements to apply for enough jobs to satisfy the benefits people was completely unrealistic so I stopped my claim very quickly. The amount I was entitled to was not sufficient to live on anyway and I wanted to concentrate on applying for jobs I could realistically expect to get, not ones I was barely qualified for and didn't want anyway! I was fortunate in that I had received an inheritance when my mum died a couple of years earlier so I was able to make that choice to live off savings. Had I not been in that position I can't imagine how I'd have survived.
I can't imagine anyone choosing to live on benefits if they were able to get a job. The system makes life increasingly difficult for claimants by the requirement to meet targets of how many jobs were applied for. In one week I was sent 400 jobs which I read through and reckoned there were only 3 I could realistically get so if I'd continued on the benefit I'd have been wasting mine and the employers' time applying for totally unsuitable jobs which I stood no chance of getting. Most also required a significant commute and I was told I could not reject a job based on distance to travel.
Of course there are feckless individuals living on benefits, but most claimants are not and as someone else said it can happen to any of us. I never thought I'd be falsely accused of assault by two schoolboys but I was!

Iam - with reference to your last paragraph I do believe that people's attitudes would change if, as you say, they were exposed to the reality of life on benefits. I have seen that happen very recently when a new colleague joined us after having had a very senior role in the police force; he has adjusted his thinking about such things quite drastically as he has experienced first-hand the intransigence of the system as he tries to help clients navigate their way through claims.

granny activist , I've worked with children and families on the margins, parents who are at the very edge of their competence and at risk of falling over. I agree with you, many people on benefits live lives of quiet desperation and should have people to champion their cause.

I wonder if those who are so suspicious of what they see as a benefits culture would have their attitudes shifted if they either had to live for a year on benefits or at least were introduced to the reality of the lives so many disadvantaged people live.

I work with people who are street homeless or are in danger of losing their homes and I wish you could all spend just one day shadowing me in my job. For those of you who already understand the difficulties endured by people in the benefits system I suspect equal measures of frustration and compassion would drive you to become activists, and for others I believe it would give new insights that would inform future understanding. Many people on benefits live lives of quiet desperation and deserve to have people championing their cause.

What a relief to see that the majority of posts are both well informed and compassionate.
Those who suggest large numbers of people 'choose' a life on benefits rather than working are wrong. Of course there are a few people who exploit our benefits system but the evidence says they cost us much less than those who exploit the tax system by finding ways to avoid paying their dues.

The growth of homelessness, mental health problems, long term unemployment aren't down to a few 'feckless' individuals, they're entirely down to dreadful government policies.

Successive Westminster Governments have destroyed UK manufacturing , failed to invest money from oil revenues, failed to provide adequate affordable/social housing, demonised the ill and vulnerable and introduced barbaric work capability assessments and benefits sanctions. None of this is down to the EU or to immigrants.
Back to the OP's point about UC ....
My husband had the experience of a work capability assessment which was not only carried out in a peculiar and humiliating manner but resulted in a report which contained outright lies about the assessment itself, the activities my husband was supposedly able to manage, and led to the removal of his benefit. We were very fortunate in that we were not dependent on the benefit to be able to pay the mortgage and feed ourselves etc and it was reinstated after an appeal .

I imagine many of you live in England and note a previous poster's comment re no credible opposition to the current government's policies.

I feel incredibly lucky to live in Scotland where , within the powers available under devolution, the Scottish Government has worked incredibly hard to ameliorate the effects of harsh policies affecting our most vulnerable citizens. This has included countering the bedroom tax, protecting EMA in Scotland, and establishing the Scottish Independent Living Fund to safeguard the rights of disabled people, after the UK fund was scrapped.

Some very significant changes are outlined in the Social Security ( Scotland) Act in relation to the administering of benefits in Scotland . One of the key points is that private companies will not be allowed to carry out the assessments.
Extensive consultation was carried out in drawing this up with various stakeholder groups and also with individuals with direct personal experience of the benefits system.

www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2018/9/enacted

Having said that, I am incredibly worried about the policies of the present UK government, especially in relation to the impact of Brexit. I think my 8 wonderful grandchildren deserve a better future (and a fair, dignified
benefits system should they ever require it)!

I think there are very few people who make the deliberate choice to exist on benefits - and it is existing, not living. As those people who have personal experience of having to live on benefits or who have friends and relatives in that situation know, immense pressure is put on people to find jobs - even in areas where jobs are scarce. They can't just rock up at a Job Centre (or whatever they call them now) and demand all sorts of benefits.

As others have said, almost everybody who needs to work to obtain an income is at risk of finding themselves in the position of having to claim benefits. Redundancy or illness, especially for people who were already only just managing and who have little or no savings, can so easily lead to homelessness, hunger and reliance on foodbanks. I am so aware how lucky we have been never to have faced such an awful situation. It's a pity other people can't count their blessings instead of criticising those who have been less fortunate.

Although this is about Universal Credit, the dire housing situation compounds the problems for low income families. The right to buy policy has been a disaster and the increasing prevalence of second homes adds to the problem. They may only be occupied for a few months, or less, a year. Meanwhile, the influx of second home buyers in more and more areas of the country means that prices have rocketed and locals can no longer afford to buy. On top of that, the decrease in local permanent residency has resulted in schools closing and other services being reduced or dropped altogether.

Local councils are considering measures to reverse this trend. In 2017 Yorkshire proposed a 500% rise in council tax for second home owners. There are similar problems in Cornwall, Devon, the Lake District and even less "touristy" areas, so these areas have either introduced or are considering introducing measures to prevent this. I think it right and necessary.

As for saying that anybody who cannot afford to rent a room (£100-150 in London) should live with their parents, well this might work as a very temporary measure but how can it possibly be a permanent solution.

My DS has a life limiting illness and he was transferred to UC and it has been one disaster after another. He had been on ESA which was paid fortnightly but UC is paid calendar monthly so had to wait a month before he got any money. Luckily I was able to help out. Now it is calendar monthly (to get claimants used to receiving wages monthly when they do get a job) he cannot manage his money at all. When he was on ESA and with his DLA he was paid 3 weeks out of 4 so he just about managed. I asked the UC guy at his local DSS if his rent could be paid direct to the council which would be a help. But that's not UC policy I was told.

My son would love to be able to work Quizqueen but he cannot physically or mentally. There are too many people with your attitude working at DSS offices and you would think it was their personal money they are paying out.

You really think people make a deliberate choice to apply for welfare benefits jennifereccles?
Your lack of empathy is astonishing. Thankfully most people commenting on this thread have been more enlightened.

I tend to agree with quizqueen

The welfare state was set up as a safety net for those who , for whatever reason were unable to work.
It was meant to be a temporary lifeline, not a lifestyle choice which happens too often these days.

Of course there are some people who do need to rely on benefits long term, but surely not the vast numbers who are claiming it year after year.

Look at the daft outcry when the government, quite rightly said that no-one should get more in benefits than those at work.

My brother suffered a minor heart attack 8 years ago and is currently unemployed. His benefits have been a total mess ever since. Several times he has been 'sanctioned' for not applying for enough jobs or, the latest sanction - for not getting enough interviews! He appealed of course but the review tried to say he had "misunderstood' the reason for his sanction. Uh no, it's in black and white, headed notepaper, from DWP in Chatham! Appeal upheld, 6 weeks later, "living" on £24 a week. Back payments repaid the loans, rent, utilities etc. 3 visits to a Food Bank, 4 food hampers from a local charity and countless meals and bags of shopping from family meant he survived with a roof over his head! And this isn't yet Universal Credit, that's due to arrive in the SE in 2020. I'll be on my pension by then, thankfully.

It it is designed to produce government statistics saying there have never been so many folk employed. Never mind whether they are employed part-time, on minimum wage or below or on zero hours contracts. It can be used as propaganda whenever anyone suggests that things are not getting better in the UK.

If the disaster that is brexit should actually happen, prepare yourselves for even more right-wing policies, which can be acclaimed as "brexit bonus" by the Sun, DM and DE.

Working with adults who have difficulties with reading and writing, or with learning difficulties has proved to me that the benefit system is not designed for the most vulnerable in society.
Some people cannot read or understand the complex benefit rules, cannot use computers and do not have ready access to computers. They may not have the confidence or the language skills to put their case and ask the right questions in interviews or assessments.
As others have said, the anxiety caused by re-assessments of benefits can cause severe problems for the mental health of claimants.
Who is this system designed for? It seems to be designed to keep the poor and disabled in their place.
And now we are told that Universal Credit costs more than the old system anyway!
Crazy.

I wonder how quizqueen explains the housing shortage in places like Cornwall where the number of immigrants is tiny but there is still a housing shortage? Obviously the tourist areas have a big problem with holiday homes, but that's a whole other subject, there are plenty of places that tourists never see where young people still can't find homes.

My children are both in their 40s. One has just bought a house, the other is still renting a flat for an exhorbitant amount. Does she really think they should both still be living with me? Which 40 year old should be squashed into the box room?

Not a surprise to most people I would think - many of us tried to raise a warning when it was first mooted but our comments fell on deaf ears.

I don't agree with what much of what quizqueen said but to be fair she made the point that benefits should be paid to those who really need it. So those who cite disability etc would be included. I think she was excluding people she perceives as reluctant to work or want a meal ticket from the rest of us to live a comfy life. As I say I'm not in total agreement with her other points but am just trying to be fair.

Universal credit was a good idea, and both main political parties gave it the thumbs up, as it simplifies a very complicated old system.However, like many things bureaucracy hasn’t kept pace, which has resulted in hardship.It is ( apparently)much better now, waiting times less and so on, but will need time to be ‘ironed out’ which means that people will still suffer as a result.
Sometimes governments introduce ( or roll out as they like to call it) measures which are not at all ready.With changing any unwieldy system some things are bound to go pear
shaped, but there have been far too many things going wrong.

So we shouldn’t care about UC because it’s all the fault of the poor/ unemployed/ disabled/ sick/ immigrants / EU. Nothing to do with our own dear governments ‘ policies over the years . Sigh ...

quizqueen is probably one of life's fortunates unlike most of us.......qq should remember there but for fortune ....life is not always how we plan it ...illness, loss of a partner, a job an income ...all these things can happen to any of us. This government is the worst I have ever known ......never mind the people, its all for one, and one for all ...I'm alright Jack ....and lack of suitable affordable housing is way down on their list of priorities, and when it is, like Grenfell, the council decided to 'tart up' the block because its appearance caused offence to the residents of K & C in their million pound homes.........where I originate from in Suffolk, there is now a plan to build a lot of affordabel housing on open fields ......guess what ? the very people who live in the village, and who complain because their children have to move away because they cannot afford to live in the place they grew up due to hous prices and lack of jobs, NOW say ....oh dear, housing. affordable > ! shock horror NOT IN MY BACKYARD.......and when quizzed they say oh yes, we need affordable housing and social housing, but there must be somewhere else to build it .............I despair !

I hate to seem unfriendly but I hope that I never have to meet so unpleasant a person as quizqueen

Well said GRANNY PAULINE. In complete agreement

The shortage of social housing can be directly attributed to the Right to Buy scheme. Unless new, affordable houses were built to match every council house sold under RTB, there was bound to be a shortage, eventually. And so it has proven. Thus Thatcher and successive Governments are wholly responsible. Governmental short sightedness in this country, not just on this issue, is monumental.