Benefit Sanctions - another Select Committee inquiry.

[nukecad]

Ever been sanctioned?

The Work and Pensions Committee launches an inquiry into benefit sanctions: how they operate, recent developments, and what the evidence is that they work - either to deter non-compliant behaviour or to help achieve the policy objectives of getting people off benefits and into work.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/c...-launch-17-19/

They are inviting the public to submit evidence, if you have been sanctioned here's a chance to have a say:

Send us your views

The Committee invites evidence on any or all of the following questions, from benefit recipients with experience of the system, or experts in the field:

1. To what extent is the current sanctions regime achieving its policy objectives?
2. Is the current evidence base adequate and if not, what further information, data and research are required?
3. What improvements to sanctions policy could be made to achieve its objectives better?
4. Could a challenge period and/or a system of warnings for a first sanctionable offence be beneficial? If so, how should they be implemented?
5. Are levels of discretion afforded to jobcentre staff appropriate?
6. Are adequate protections in place for vulnerable claimants?
7. What effects does sanctions policy have on other aspects of the benefits system and public services more widely? Are consequential policy changes required?
8. To what extent have the recommendations of the Oakley review of Jobseekers’ Allowance sanctions improved the sanctions regime? Are there recommendations that have not been implemented that should be?

The deadline for written submissions is 25 May 2018.

You can also submit evidence in an online form, by attaching a word document, as you could for the recent inquiry into Assessments.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/c...bmission-form/

As I do have experience of being sanctioned (which I easily got overturned) I will be contributing a submission.

[Bekki2017]

My experience was a long time ago so I don't know if it'll be relevant or not. I was sent an invite to go on a course as I was in SG at the time told them I wasn't interests and forgot about it, until I found my money had been stopped for failure to attend, likewise a meeting at jobcentre to discuss going back to work. Both were over turned easily by welfare rights person at CAB but that stopped a few years ago now.

[nukecad]

Although mine was also a while ago it was initiated by a 3rd party 'Work Programme Provider' raising a 'compliance concern' in error.
I was sent 2 letters for one appointment, then sanctioned for not attending a fictious one a couple of days later - I was also given incorrect advice by the DWP which if followed would have resulted in the sanction not being overturned - you can read about it here: http://www.youreable.com/forums/show...ramme-sanction.

I've remembered that I did send evidence about this sanction to a previous SC inquiry, still think I'll send it again worded differently because they are looking at slightly different things here.
I think the fact that this wasn't even the DWP that raised it, and it was well know by the DWP that the WP providers kept wrongly raising them, is an important point to make.
OK, referals to the Work Programme have ended, but there are still plenty of other programmes out there.


In your case the fact that you had sanctions imposed and your money stopped whilst in the SG is worth telling them about, even if it was a while ago.
I'd just keep it short and give the bare facts like you have here, with the approximate dates so that they can judge themselves if it is relevant to what they want to hear.
Maybe suggest that the DWP should be more careful checking if a sanction should/could be imposed?
And/or suggest that the computer is blocked from raising a sanction for those in SG, or 'vulnerable clients'?


The enquiry on assessments got a record response, by an order of magnitude, of evidence submissions from those on benefits.
If they get another record response to this one it will help to keep the pressure on the DWP.

[Bekki2017]

In your case the fact that you had sanctions imposed and your money stopped whilst in the SG is worth telling them about, even if it was a while ago.
I'd just keep it short and give the bare facts like you have here, with the approximate dates so that they can judge themselves if it is relevant to what they want to hear.
Maybe suggest that the DWP should be more careful checking if a sanction should/could be imposed?
And/or suggest that the computer is blocked from raising a sanction for those in SG, or 'vulnerable clients'?

That's exactly what I was thinking of doing. Thanks.