Sanctions and suicide

[theone]

The shame is that these are not isolated cases, they happen again and again. 58% of successful appeals may show an appeals system which works but it shows a sanctions regime which is failing - affecting people who should never have been Sanctioned in the first place.

I'm sure they do happen again and again, but that doesn't show an unacceptable system without quantifying 'again and again'. There's something like 5 million people in the UK who don't work and receive benefits.

Even with a 99.9% success rate we could expect 5000 wrongly applied sanctions a year. 99% would be 50000 and 90% 500000.

Even a 90% success rate in a benefits system so open to abuse by those who don't want to work would not show a sanctions regime that was failing in my opinion.

In addition people who work with those on benefits have identified significant numbers of claimants who have not been informed of their right to appeal.

Then that is a failure of the staff who implement the policy. Unless you have evidence that it is a deliberate policy to deceive claimants then you can hardly blame the government for that one.

It seems that if appeals are too high then just make it more difficult to appeal and that's the same attitude as "if policies are affecting people to the extent that they are suicidal we will just put in suicide training for staff dealing with said people". The implementation in government policies are at fault and there is not even the slightest attempt to change it

Again, this assumes the policy is at fault.

Define the success rate which would be acceptable. 90%? 95%? What success rate could realistically be achieved whilst trying to ensure those paying their taxes are not being ripped off by benefit cheats?

The higher the number you demand, the more cheats slip through the net. I'm sure the majority of taxpayers want it to be as hard as possible to commit benefit fraud.

And as for hard hearted people closing their hearts and minds, well the lorry leaving Caithness full of donations for refuge would suggest that is not the case. Thank goodness.

A whole lorry? From a population of 30,000 people? Wow.

[BetterTogether]

A very big Lorry or a small Lorry could it even be a transit van or estate car given the posters relish for conflating everything it could well be part of an Eddie Stobart Box set complete with realistic decals !

[Alrock]

Then that is a failure of the staff who implement the policy. Unless you have evidence that it is a deliberate policy to deceive claimants then you can hardly blame the government for that one...

I'll assume then that you didn't see the Pamorama programme a few months back that went undercover into the benefits system...

[squidge]

I'm sure they do happen again and again, but that doesn't show an unacceptable system without quantifying 'again and again'. There's something like 5 million people in the UK who don't work and receive benefits. Even with a 99.9% success rate we could expect 5000 wrongly applied sanctions a year. 99% would be 50000 and 90% 500000..Even a 90% success rate in a benefits system so open to abuse by those who don't want to work would not show a sanctions regime that was failing in my opinion.Then that is a failure of the staff who implement the policy. Unless you have evidence that it is a deliberate policy to deceive claimants then you can hardly blame the government for that one..

There is evidence, journalists have evidence, the CAB, CPAG, JRF, a variety of activist group have evidence, there's a woman standing outside Ashton-u-Lyne Jobcentreplus office has evidence, food banks have evidence, various health charities - MIND, ENABLE, have evidence, the social security committee at Westminster has evidence..... But nothing happens except the greater the amount of evidence the more "poverty porn" we see on the telly and the more woman with 57 children gets £1 million in benefits a week stories we see in the papers.

Again, this assumes the policy is at fault.Define the success rate which would be acceptable. 90%? 95%? What success rate could realistically be achieved whilst trying to ensure those paying their taxes are not being ripped off by benefit cheats?The higher the number you demand, the more cheats slip through the net. I'm sure the majority of taxpayers want it to be as hard as possible to commit benefit fraud.

Benefit sanctions are not to do with fraud theone. Not at all. These aren't fraudulent claims or benefit cheats and it is wrong to conflate the two issues. These are people who are genuine claimants. Sanctions aren't designed to catch fraudulent claimants. These are cases where a decision is made by a member of staff that someone has broken a rule and as a result that persons money is stopped - immediately. Often with no thought given to the reasons - so we have people who have an interview for a job and a signing on time and they are sanctioned for going to the interview despite the fact that they told the Jobcentreplus they had said interview. That happens again and again. Often the person doesn't even know they have been sanctioned so they go to the post office or hole in the wall and have no money and there is nothing they can do about it. It is not about fraud. Successful Appeals should be down at less than 20% because we should not be pushing people into utter destitution without being absolutely sure we are right.

A whole lorry? From a population of 30,000 people? Wow.

It's not the first load lol. I don't know how big it was but the Highland Group have just been given a building to use free so that we can store and sort stuff properly. It's fantastic
The current storage space is full and still stuff arrives. They need volunteers to sort if you are interested in helping out lol

[theone]

There is evidence, journalists have evidence, the CAB, CPAG, JRF, a variety of activist group have evidence, there's a woman standing outside Ashton-u-Lyne Jobcentreplus office has evidence, food banks have evidence, various health charities - MIND, ENABLE, have evidence, the social security committee at Westminster has evidence.....

You're not answering my question.

I'm sure all these people have evidence of failures of the system, poor sanctions etc. I was asking for evidence that Government Ministers in Westminster have set a policy to hide the appeals process to those on sanctions. Because that was your original point.

Benefit sanctions are not to do with fraud theone. Not at all. These aren't fraudulent claims or benefit cheats and it is wrong to conflate the two issues. These are people who are genuine claimants. Sanctions aren't designed to catch fraudulent claimants. These are cases where a decision is made by a member of staff that someone has broken a rule and as a result that persons money is stopped - immediately.

I agree it would be wrong to conflate the two issues, but I don't believe I am.

Sanctions are ABSOLUTELY to do with fraud and with catching claimants who should not be receiving benefits.

Those who receive disability benefits, for example, have to prove they have that disability and that it prevents from from working. That is the rule.

If people fail to turn up to a meeting to prove it, they should not receive tax payers money in the same way someone not turning up to work would not get paid.

Successful Appeals should be down at less than 20% because we should not be pushing people into utter destitution without being absolutely sure we are right.

Okay. That's better. Lets talk figures.

In your opinion, less than 20% of appeals should be successful. I wouldn't disagree, that sounds achievable - 4 out of 5 sanctions applied correctly, 1 out of 5 wrong.

It's difficult to quantify precise numbers, but from what is reported in the Guardian, around a million received sanctions in a year. Some report 900,00, some 1.2 million. Lets call it an even million. So if that's in a year, lets call it 500,000 in 6 months.

The independent reports that there were 1300 appeals to sanctions in the first 6 months of the year. 1300 appeals from 500,000 sanction. It's fair to say that in those cases where no appeal was made, the sanctions were correct. Out of those 1300 appeals, 53% were overturned. So 754 people had wrongly been sanctioned, 611 were correct.

So out of 500,000 sanctions, 754 were wrong. 1.5% were wrong.

A 98.5% success rate in ensuring benefits were stopped to those who weren't entitled to receive them.

499,246 who shouldn't have been getting benefits caught.

I'd call that a win for the taxpayer, and a successful policy.

Sources for figures used here:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...-effectiveness

and here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10495119.html

As you Squidge, it's easy to get carried away with stories of single mothers with 57 kids in the right leaning press. But it is equally as easy to get carried away with stories of quadruple amputees getting sent to work in a sweat shop in the left leaning press.

What I find is that when you remove the emotion these articles are designed to promote, whether it be hatred or empathy, and look into the stories with your head instead of your heart - at the big picture and facts instead of isolated cases - only then can you make a reasoned judgement.