Universal Credit: fit for purpose?

[GrumpyWasTooCheerful]

Just came across this:
They’ve suffered enough. But now veterans are battling universal credit, too | Dawn Foster

After 4 years, only about 700,000 people are on it.

It cost £15.8bn as of 2015. So goodness knows how much so todate.
Universal Credit costs leap by more than 20% to £15.8bn

A phone call to register for the benefit is charged at 0345 rate. The government has decided to scrap the charge by the end of this year.
Universal Credit helpline charges scrapped


It seems to be a complete clusterf*ck. It was IDS's idea. Should he be billed and held liable?

 

[dun_n_dusted]

It was announced earlier this morning that the phone call charges were being binned and as it is only being rolled out in limited areas currently it's no wonder numbers on it are low. I fail to see why veterans who qualify for UC should be treated any differently to anyone else.

Like all major programmes there are always teething problems but I'm glad I don't qualify or need it.

 

[MrMemory]

Seemed rather cruel to force people to pay 55p/minute to access information on their benefits especially when much of that time was apparently spent on hold.

And of course it's rather pointless to pay people money in benefits then start deducting it via their phone bill.

IMHO, a good example of the Opposition do it's job by highlighting an issue and pressurising the Government into changing their policy.

 

[Sixty]

Well it's a great idea in principle: not removing all benefits in one swoop when someone secures a job but tapering the cut. There's another part of me that thinks that paying a combined benefit in a single monthly tranche is ripe for abuse; particularly by those who'd have no qualms in running up rent arrears and the like.

Not everyone by any means on benefits is feckless and, frankly, I'm glad there's a safety net that will kick in for everyone but human nature being what it is, there's bound to be some 'spend it all and damn the consequences' thoughts floating about.

Plus major Government IT infrastructure projects are always and without variance, gash.

 

[dun_n_dusted]

Seemed rather cruel to force people to pay 55p/minute to access information on their benefits especially when much of that time was apparently spent on hold.

To that I'd add the HMRC call ripperoffer. Must be a government (of all colours) thing.

 

[Ripiznutzov]

So you pay tax on money earnnt, so they can pay people welfare support (no objections so far), then they tax the welfare they get and charge them to call you, obviously including sales tax in that charge.

Then pay someone else from your taxed money to sort out the bills and money exchange between departments.

Who obviously pays tax....

Does your head in after a while.

 

[hellsbrink]

Well it's a great idea in principle: not removing all benefits in one swoop when someone secures a job but tapering the cut. There's another part of me that thinks that paying a combined benefit in a single monthly tranche is ripe for abuse; particularly by those who'd have no qualms in running up rent arrears and the like.

Not everyone by any means on benefits is feckless and, frankly, I'm glad there's a safety net that will kick in for everyone but human nature being what it is, there's bound to be some 'spend it all and damn the consequences' thoughts floating about.

Plus major Government IT infrastructure projects are always and without variance, gash.

Paying benefits monthly here works ok, and those who do decide to try and run up rent arrears and the like soon find themselves on the street because, well, that sort of thing isn't tolerated here even with the more "protective" tenancy laws here, you have to make sure your nose is clean or the courts will throw you under the bus. Don't pay your leccy bill, you get a prepaid meter and if you refuse then you don't have any leccy. Don't pay your debts, you lose your stuff. In all cases the same term applies, miss three payments then you get one shot to sort out a deal and stick to it or you lose, no exceptions.

If they started doing that in the UK, certain problems would disappear quite quickly.

 

[Equinox]

It depends on what your perception of its (Universal Credit) purpose, actually is. Radio 4 (Today programme) yesterday, reported that no claimant gets any benefit for the first 7 days of their claim, no matter what.
Apparently, this has already saved the govt a tidy sum.
No time right now - off to work - but will find a link later.
Unless someone else time/inclination to do so?

 

[hellsbrink]

It depends on what your perception of its (Universal Credit) purpose, actually is. Radio 4 (Today programme) yesterday, reported that no claimant gets any benefit for the first 7 days of their claim, no matter what.
Apparently, this has already saved the govt a tidy sum.
No time right now - off to work - but will find a link later.
Unless someone else time/inclination to do so?

Well, there's usually a minimum of a week's back pay so you will still be getting paid during the first week of unemployment, it's after that when you get eff all from work so I can see the reasoning

 

[Krazy_Ivan]

Plus major Government IT infrastructure projects are always and without variance, gash.

I disagree, I worked on both the HMPS "Quantum Refresh" & the DWP "TREDSS" programs. Both were delivered on time and fit for purpose.

 

[offog]

Paying benefits monthly here works ok, and those who do decide to try and run up rent arrears and the like soon find themselves on the street because, well, that sort of thing isn't tolerated here even with the more "protective" tenancy laws here, you have to make sure your nose is clean or the courts will throw you under the bus. Don't pay your leccy bill, you get a prepaid meter and if you refuse then you don't have any leccy. Don't pay your debts, you lose your stuff. In all cases the same term applies, miss three payments then you get one shot to sort out a deal and stick to it or you lose, no exceptions.

If they started doing that in the UK, certain problems would disappear quite quickly.

But what about the children you heartless bar steward. Poor children living in the dark and unable to charge their phones and going to food banks because they don't serve burgers and chips at school lunch now.

According to JC hundreds of people had been evicted from their homes due to the UC.

@Archduke Charles makes a good point and one that had not occurred to me. In a report last night on the One Show one of the housing associations in an area that was running one of the pilots said that the rent arrears had gone up drastically due to UC. At the time I assumed it was due to late payment but it may be that as it is paid to the claimant not the landlord, Ladbrokes, Carling and BAT get first dibs on the cash.

We have heard a lot about those who have had difficulty and if you listen to the news it would seem that everyone on it has a problem. The other side of the coin is not being reported so we get very little ballance.

 

[Equinox]

Well, there's usually a minimum of a week's back pay so you will still be getting paid during the first week of unemployment, it's after that when you get eff all from work so I can see the reasoning

Not all claimants will have been employed prior to claiming, but a good point.

 

[Equinox]

But what about the children you heartless bar steward. Poor children living in the dark and unable to charge their phones and going to food banks because they don't serve burgers and chips at school lunch now.

According to JC hundreds of people had been evicted from their homes due to the UC.

@Archduke Charles makes a good point and one that had not occurred to me. In a report last night on the One Show one of the housing associations in an area that was running one of the pilots said that the rent arrears had gone up drastically due to UC. At the time I assumed it was due to late payment but it may be that as it is paid to the claimant not the landlord, Ladbrokes, Carling and BAT get first dibs on the cash.

We have heard a lot about those who have had difficulty and if you listen to the news it would seem that everyone on it has a problem. The other side of the coin is not being reported so we get very little ballance.

Housing benefit has been paid to claimants for years already.
So it isn't that ....

 

[TamH70]

But what about the children you heartless bar steward. Poor children living in the dark and unable to charge their phones and going to food banks because they don't serve burgers and chips at school lunch now.

According to JC hundreds of people had been evicted from their homes due to the UC.

@Archduke Charles makes a good point and one that had not occurred to me. In a report last night on the One Show one of the housing associations in an area that was running one of the pilots said that the rent arrears had gone up drastically due to UC. At the time I assumed it was due to late payment but it may be that as it is paid to the claimant not the landlord, Ladbrokes, Carling and BAT get first dibs on the cash.

We have heard a lot about those who have had difficulty and if you listen to the news it would seem that everyone on it has a problem. The other side of the coin is not being reported so we get very little ballance.

That is because there is no other side of the coin. UC is a disaster, that's cost the government billions so far with sweet sod all to really show for it, and all it's really doing is as said giving BAT, Carling and Ladbrokes money rather than landlords. It's a prime example of the Sunk Costs fallacy in action, with the government having sacrificed too much credibility already for them to sacrifice any more by killing UC.

 

[hellsbrink]

But what about the children you heartless bar steward. Poor children living in the dark and unable to charge their phones and going to food banks because they don't serve burgers and chips at school lunch now.

According to JC hundreds of people had been evicted from their homes due to the UC.

@Archduke Charles makes a good point and one that had not occurred to me. In a report last night on the One Show one of the housing associations in an area that was running one of the pilots said that the rent arrears had gone up drastically due to UC. At the time I assumed it was due to late payment but it may be that as it is paid to the claimant not the landlord, Ladbrokes, Carling and BAT get first dibs on the cash.

We have heard a lot about those who have had difficulty and if you listen to the news it would seem that everyone on it has a problem. The other side of the coin is not being reported so we get very little ballance.

Then the problem is not UC then, as I have pointed out elsewhere.

As I say, benefits are paid out monthly here and, if you are in "social housing", you have to pay a part of the rent that isn't subsidised to death. As your benefits go up, the subsidy drops. You pays your bill or you're out on the street.

For some reason people don't generally have a problem in doing so, strange that...

 

[hellsbrink]

Not all claimants will have been employed prior to claiming, but a good point.

If you go on dole straight from school/college/uni don't you have a longer "waiting period", something like 3 months, before you can claim unemployment?

 

[hellsbrink]

That is because there is no other side of the coin. UC is a disaster, that's cost the government billions so far with sweet sod all to really show for it, and all it's really doing is as said giving BAT, Carling and Ladbrokes money rather than landlords. It's a prime example of the Sunk Costs fallacy in action, with the government having sacrificed too much credibility already for them to sacrifice any more by killing UC.

So, once more, UC isn't actually the problem.

 

[TamH70]

So, once more, UC isn't actually the problem.

Actually, you're wrong about that. Badly to boot. The way UC gives all the money to the claimant, rather than paying a sum of that money to the landlord to cover the rent, is really stupid and was known to be so right from the start. Because the claimant may not be, and in many cases is not, the person who spends the money.

That would be the violent thug of a girlfriend/boyfriend/husband/wife who takes the money and pisses it against the wall on the things noted above. Numerous charities have been saying as such ever since this idiocy of a "benefit" started.

At this point I wonder why anyone who doesn't work for the government defends UC. It's an outside context error when I see anyone else doing so.

 

[hellsbrink]

Actually, you're wrong about that. Badly to boot. The way UC gives all the money to the claimant, rather than paying a sum of that money to the landlord to cover the rent, is really stupid and was known to be so right from the start. Because the claimant may not be, and in many cases is not, the person who spends the money.

That would be the violent thug of a girlfriend/boyfriend/husband/wife who takes the money and pisses it against the wall on the things noted above. Numerous charities have been saying as such ever since this idiocy of a "benefit" started.

At this point I wonder why anyone who doesn't work for the government defends UC. It's an outside context error when I see anyone else doing so.

First, as has been pointed out, housing has been paid to the claimant for some time, the claimant has the choice about the money going direct to the landlord or not. So that argument regarding UC is codswallop.

And the "thug boyfriend" excuse is nothing new, it's used by many to justify why they refuse to pay their bills and there are ways to make sure they do not stay in such a trap. Again, that has eff all to do with UC.

So, once more, UC is NOT the problem.

 

[offog]

First, as has been pointed out, housing has been paid to the claimant for some time, the claimant has the choice about the money going direct to the landlord or not. So that argument regarding UC is codswallop.

And the "thug boyfriend" excuse is nothing new, it's used by many to justify why they refuse to pay their bills and there are ways to make sure they do not stay in such a trap. Again, that has eff all to do with UC.

So, once more, UC is NOT the problem.

Many years ago when my first child was born the wife was still in hospital and I went to sort out the child benefit. I was told that she was the only one who could claim it. When I questioned this the woman behind the post office counter relented and said they prefered to pay it to the mother as she was more likely to spend it on what was good for the child. A sweeping statement but seen as gospel by many.