Skip to main content

Doubtful

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.

Comments

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…

I Hate James Bartholomew

Know the Tory mindset: according to these creatures welfare breeds dependency. Meanwhile they do not want to set a minimum wage, they do not want to create legislation to protect the un - and under - employed from the predations of the system they benefit from. That word is chosen deliberately, because they like benefits for themselves - the ability to sack whom they like, when they like and how they like. In this UKIP are the same. This is the febrile heart of the right wing.
Yesterday on 5 Live's laughable morning phone in - bigots drink for free - another right wing excuse for a human, James Bartholomew, revealed another aspect of their nasty prejudice and staggering ignorance. Not surprisingly this vile creature was once a banker. He writes (if one can call it that) for the Telegraph and though I don't know the content of his ballot paper, I dare say I can guess. He props up every tory myth about the unemployed and welfare with dull witted aplomb.
He believes people have …

Magical Thinking

Well that's that for pursuing a diagnosis for Aspergers or anything remotely similar.

I contacted the Patient Advisory Liaison Service (PALS) to try and sort this out after being lied to by the clinician regarding referring me to the ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) people. That never happened and she continues to deny saying she would. Of course I cannot prove this and so the patient-doctor dynamic kicks in: I'm the lowly patient, she's the expert doctor, her reputation versus mine and so who wins?

I could make a complaint, but what would be the point. I might get a nice letter in a few months time saying sorry in a mealy mouthed way, but it doesn't get me any closer to what I need. That being a diagnosis, a formal, written and recorded, recognition of the issues I deal with. Lacking that, dealing with the systems in society, chiefly the DWP, becomes more difficult. Unfortunately the medical profession doesn't seem to care about that.

We have a society fuelled by …