Skip to main content


This is a story I came across a couple of days ago, though it's dated from last month. Consequently I don't know the final outcome and hope the person concerned has gotten a proper resolution. It's an interesting insight into the nature of the sanction regime. 

What seems to have happened is that Mrs Wilkes, in falling foul of the increasingly ubiquitous jobsworthian mentality at the DWP (I guess it's easier for these people to sleep at night this way), has been sanctioned by default. 

Firstly her claim is called into question for no good reason, but the adviser is apparently allowed to just 'question' it as they see fit. Querying this only makes their opinion harden and so the 'doubt' is sent behind the scenes upstairs to a decision maker. Yet in the meantime her benefit is stopped. I have long suspected, having been told this by the DWP years ago, that this is now normal practise: guilt is presumed and, before even a decision can be made officially, the customer is effectively sanctioned. This is wrong on every level and must be opposed. Yet, despite all their claims to Labour being the party of the scrounger, it was Labour that introduced these tougher rules.

But it gets worse, at the time the article is written Mrs Wilkes is still waiting for that decision. She was 'sanctioned' in May, yet by August all she knows is that she should hear a decision in September. This is extraordinary: if they decide(d) against her she would only get sanctioned for two weeks. This is because it's her first 'offence' and we know what the rules are because that nice Mr Grayling wrote to us all a month or so ago telling us (in the wake of the court hearing about workfare, remember?) that a first transgression is a two week sanction. So where is the justice? Doubtless the DWP will argue that all due benefit will be backdated, but that doesn't help the claimant in the here and now - especially one with a disabled husband for god's sake! How can it be right that the DWP, through its own mealy mouthed feckless shirking, can simply call a halt to someone's claim on the basis of a 'doubt' without even an official decision first (this of course assumes that the decision maker will find in the claimant's favour).

The nasty part of this is that it allows the DWP, deliberately or otherwise, to circumvent the sanction rules. Thus a two week first offence bears a much more punitive consequence, all because of the DWP's intransigence, ignorance and incompetence. Will the adviser in question bear any liability? Will the DWP throw claimants like this a bone in lieu of a decision that should have been made 4 months earlier? I think we can guess.

Of course this all assumes that Mrs Wilkes is indeed innocent. But then why should I assume otherwise? I don't know her, but I, like you, know what the DWP are like. Perhaps this is a deliberately punitive tactic? Maybe it's just the system unable to cope anymore, no thanks to the Fuhrer, IDS. Either way it matters not. What's important is that people are being adversely affected by a heartless system.


Popular posts from this blog

I Fucking Hate the Work Programme

That did not go well.
My legs were wobbly to begin with as I closed in on the church that passes for the office of the employment wing of the Salvation Army. My appointment was 3 to half past. I really did feel sick. Pretty early on, when he asked for the forms he gave me last time to fill in, I knew that what was arranged on the letter (a short interview with me bringing my CV and jobsearch) was actually going to be much longer. I also knew that, come half three when I had to leave to catch my bus back ten minutes later, I was going to have problems. 
Unfortunately, though more for me I fear, it never got that far; at 20 past he terminated the interview citing my apparent 'putting up barriers' as the reason not to continue. This was because I refused consent for him to keep my CV. I asked why he needed it and offered, three times, to show it to him (that's all), he said it was to apply for jobs on my behalf. The EEC's need this information.
What's an EEC? Employm…

U.N. and Them

What are my thoughts on this?

It's a humanitarian crisis. Is that a phrase we should only reserve for famines in Africa or force majeure? We seem to have a blind spot to these things when they are on our own doorstep - it couldn't happen here, could it?


Seven years of the most brutal selfish and greedy governance, not to mention the least competent, has brought us to the point where the United Nations are telling the Tories they are causing a 'human catastrophe' amongst the disabled and the sick. This is not the first time, and even that doesn't include their comments on the hated and spiteful (not to mention ineffectual) Bedroom Tax.

Do the Tories persist with these policies because they actually believe they are correct or even moral?

Or is it because they have no other way to appease the media attack dogs and/or the braying Shirefolk that delight in persecuting the poor as they do torturing foxes and badgers?

Is it both?

We have a government, in a first wor…

Into the Mirror

So tomorrow morning is my WCA. Needless to say I am not looking forward to it, and that would be an understatement. It's currently sitting in my mind, refusing to leave, cooking up a stultifying negativity. That's the thing with depression; it's a presence that, even if you manage to distract yourself for a time, it returns with hammer-like vengeance. That feeling alone is enough to make the problem of depression the horrible reality it is. Sucker punched by your own thoughts.

Logically - as if we live in a logical society - I should pass. My situation is unchanged from last year. However that is exactly why I won't pass. You might think it reasonable to simply report that fact, but the simplicity of doing so, the ease of process, is exactly why you can't. Instead I will be seen, likely by someone different, and asked the same questions; some of which will not be relevant but part of the deceptive nature of the process. For example, being asked 'how did you get…