Tag: welfare

Bone marrow transplant patient could lose her Motability car under DWP rules

“Lesley” is petrified. She needs a bone marrow transplant at the end of this month. Trying to deal with Myelodysplasia – a serious blood disorder that causes a drop in the number of healthy blood cells – is tough enough already, and she is very anxious about the transplant. But now she’s worried she’ll lose her Motability vehicle at the very time she needs it most. The decision by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to stop paying the mobility component of the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) or Personal Independence Payment (PIP) to the Motability Scheme when people end up in hospital for more than 28 days has added an extra level of concern.

The 47-year-old divorcee depends on the leased car for her 40-mile round trip to the NHS centre of excellence where she’s being treated. She expects to be in hospital for four to six weeks post-transplant. She has also been told by the hospital that she could be in again after that frequently as an inpatient and will have three visits a week as an outpatient. She’s advised that using public transport poses an infection risk post-transplant. She is unable to rely on family and friends who are at work for lifts, and can’t afford taxis.

The DWP tells people in receipt of DLA to let them know when they first go into hospital, and to tell them once they are discharged. They are then told to supply details of any subsequent inpatient stays. But “Lesley” says this just “adds to the stress when I just want to move on with my life – they are just putting obstacles in my way”.

She says Motability has been sympathetic to her circumstances and has said she can keep the car for a couple of months if DWP payments to Motability on her behalf are cancelled. But with the prospect of being in and out of hospital on the horizon for some time, she’s concerned that a possible pattern of stop-start payments may not be triggered quickly enough to ensure that the car is available when she desperately needs it. She believes that those with the most serious illnesses who have to spend longer in hospital risk losing out most under this change, which began in April 2013. “If I wasn’t very ill I would continue to get it (the mobility component), but because I am very ill, I don’t get it. In all the literature I am advised to not use public transport due to infection risk. How then would I get to hospital?”

Following the transplant her immune system is going to be “wiped out completely”. “If I travel (on public transport) with someone with a cold and I catch it, that would be extremely bad news – really dangerous. Getting public transport could effectively kill me yet I may be left with no choice. I have had to think long and hard about this transplant. All my family and friends work and I’m single, so cannot rely on others. It’s scaring me as it’s a dangerous procedure anyway and then I could catch a cold virus or infection from someone and die because I don’t have my own clean safe transport. The decision to change the rules in 2013 was a ludicrous one. Also I wasn’t warned about it when I started the car scheme. Suspending and reinstating the mobility component must cost a fortune in administration.”

There are two organisations which work closely together to deliver the Motability Scheme. They are Motability, a registered charity, responsible for oversight and Scheme policy, and Motability Operations Ltd, a not-for-profit private company that operates the Scheme under contract to Motability. A spokesman for Motability said in a statement: “To lease a car, scooter or powered wheelchair through the Motability Scheme, an individual must be in receipt of the Higher Rate Mobility Component of the DLA, or the Enhanced Rate of the Mobility Component of PIP. Motability has no role in determining who should receive disability benefits – that is solely the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). In general, the DWP do not make payments of DLA care and mobility components after a disabled person has been in hospital for 28 days or more (84 days for children under 16). Payments resume once the disabled person comes out of hospital. From April 2013 onwards, the DWP has started to treat all hospital inpatients in the same way, whether they have a Motability vehicle or not. This means that if a customer spends more than 28 days in hospital, the DWP will stop paying the mobility component of the DLA/PIP to the Motability Scheme.”

The statement adds: “As soon as customers are admitted to hospital, they should notify the DWP of their change in circumstance. For hospital stays of more than 28 days, they or somebody acting on their behalf should contact Motability’s Customer Services Team on 0300 456 4566 to discuss their individual circumstances. Depending on the expected length of their hospital stay and, of course, their own preferences, we will discuss appropriate arrangements with them. Since this change was made by the DWP in April 2013, we have been contacted by a number of customers in this situation and have been able to leave cars with them in the expectation that they will come out of hospital and have their allowance reinstated by the DWP within a reasonable period.”

The DWP was approached for information about the cost of administering the change and the savings made since the change was implemented. It was asked how many disabled people had been affected after stays in hospital and if any cost/benefit analysis had been undertaken prior to the change. It was also asked if any challenges or complaints had been received, and whether there was a legislative basis for the change. No reply has been received to date.

Motability’s flexible and understanding approach to individuals affected by this change is admirable – but what happens if the person is unfortunate enough to need a series of extended hospital stays and the DWP isn’t paying for the car? The uncertainty involved isn’t making “Lesley’s” life any less stressful. Also, for how long will Motability continue take the financial hit as it strives to do the right thing?

Gina is chased for a £732 working tax credit ‘debt’: ‘It’s another form of sanction’

Gina is chased for a £732 working tax credit ‘debt’: ‘It’s another form of sanction’

Gina Lomax says it is "immoral" that she has been told to pay back £732 in working tax credit.
Gina Loxam says it is “immoral” that she has been told to pay back £732 in working tax credit.
When is a debt not a debt? When it’s £732 that the government says is now owed by Gina Loxam in Working Tax Credit (WTC).

Gina, a single woman of 58 from the north-west of England, had been on WTC – a means tested payment for those in low-paid work – including self-employed people. It’s paid by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). Unfortunately Gina, who lost her beloved pet shop business in the recession, became very ill with depression. Following an assessment by ATOS, she was placed on employment and support allowance (ESA) in the work-related activity group. Because she was receiving WTC, this amount was deducted from her ESA to ensure she only got £100 per week.

She did her WTC return only to discover she was no longer entitled to it after 28 weeks off sick. She has now been told that she owes HMRC £732. ESA will not back date their reduced underpayments to cover this, saying she should have informed WTC directly when she went onto ESA. Gina says of this demand from the HMRC: “I was in no fit state to even feed myself let alone notify loads of different departments of my current status. I am now left with a debt of £732 for money I never received off the ESA. This is morally wrong and theft. Apparently this is happening to a lot of people on WTC who went onto ESA. Why are these departments not liaising and ensuring the claimants are aware of the rules? This is another way of sanctioning the vunerable.”

Gina wants the ESA to backdate her full benefit to the date the WTC ceased so that she can pay the WTC back from the reimbursed ESA underpayments. She adds: “I also want to raise awareness of how immoral this whole situation is. I am not asking for anything I was not entitled too. If I have to pay this back, it means I would have been only receiving £47 for three months instead of £100. It boils down to theft of benefits.”

She says of people who are ill and in her situation: “It’s ridiculous to have a debt you don’t really owe because you were underpaid ESA. How many people have been affected by this? It’s another form of sanction. I have worked all my life and to be in this position is abhorrent. I’ve written a letter to the HMRC telling them I can’t pay.”

Gina wrote to her local MP, Conservative David Morris, for help. He replied: “There is no scope for discretion within the law relating to Social Security, and that is something which we must all accept as fact, regardless of whether or not we agree with it. It has long been intrinsic within Social Security Legislation that the onus of responsibility to provide accurate information, details and documentation both at the outset of a claim, and at all stages thereafter, rests with the claimant. This would include therefore, reporting change of circumstances. The regulations say that it is your duty to report any change in your circumstances which you might be reasonably expected to know could affect your right to, the amount of, or the payment of, your benefits.
This is Regulation 32(1A) and (1B) of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987. It is not the responsibility of any individual or Government Department to notify someone either that they are eligible to claim a particular benefit, or to take action on an assumption of a change of circumstances. If you fail to disclose a material fact which affects your entitlement, (whether unintentional or otherwise) then an overpayment will be deemed to have occurred. Such overpayments are then generally recoverable.”

She wrote back to Mr Morris telling him that she did not receive an overpayment. “The Government can’t have it both ways. I was underpaid my ESA. If I had been getting the full benefit for WTC and ESA I would have been overpaid. But this is not an overpayment as I did not get my full ESA entitlement! I don’t even want the money paid back to me but to go direct to HMRC clearing my ‘debt’. An inter department transfer.”. She continued: “The whole situation is theft and a sanction. I am sure you would not be happy if you were expected to lose seven weeks of your salary due to an honest mistake.”

Gina wants to know how many people have been affected by this issue. She added: “It’s just immoral. It’s a secret sanction. They’re not telling people what they need to do, yet they are very quick to penalize people for not doing it. I was bouncing back (from depression), but I’m not now. I’m worrying about money I’ve lost that I should have had. I’m not going to pay this. I refuse.”

She points out that when she applied for ESA she had to note on the claim form which benefits she was claiming and that she listed WTC. “So they would have had that information, they knew I was on it. Why wasn’t that automatically flagged on the system once I’d been on ESA for more than 28 weeks? The DWP should automatically send out a letter after 28 weeks to those on WTC informing them that they are now going to get full ESA and they will either inform WTC or you have to. Simple.”

Thanks to Gina for flagging up this issue. Please get in touch if you have had similar problems with WTC and ESA.

James is now destitute following a sanction: ‘It’s bully boy tactics’, he says.

James is now destitute following a sanction: ‘It’s bully boy tactics’, he says.

James Dearsley, 60, receives a three-month sanction while on the Work Programme
James Dearsley, 60, receives a three-month sanction while on the Work Programme

A vulnerable 60-year-old has been left penniless and dependent on food bank support after his Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) was sanctioned at the end of July while on the Work Programme. South-east Londoner James Dearsley received a letter from the Department for Work and Pensions (below) telling him that he had been sanctioned from July 29 and that his JSA would not be reinstated until October 29. James, who is already in arrears with his council tax, has spent more than three weeks without social security. This withdrawal of money means that he’s already been forced to use Greenwich food bank twice.

He says the local job centre told him he was being sanctioned because on three consecutive occasions he had failed to turn up for his Work Programme appointment with a Seetec job search support club. The letter from the DWP states: “We have decided that you did not comply with the requirements of the scheme to which you have been referred and that you did not have sufficiently good reasons for doing so.”

The letter from the Department for Work and Pensions to James Dearsley concerning his three-month sanction
The letter from the Department for Work and Pensions to James Dearsley concerning his three-month sanction

James, who has health issues, says he was not able to make his July 16 appointment because he was sick. He received a phone call from Seetec and he told them he was ill. He says he was able to attend his next appointment on July 23, and also turned up for his appointment with Seetec on July 30, “but they sent me home because they said I had a sick note and because of that I couldn’t stay there”. He added that later they “said verbally that they were sanctioning me because of three supposed missed appointments”.

He has now submitted an application for a hardship payment – which is an emergency payment at a much lower rate than JSA. He was told last week that it would take seven to 10 days for this to come through. James has also very recently submitted an application for employment and support allowance (ESA).

How does he feel about the three-month sanction and the effect it could also have on his housing? “It’s draconian. I also owe £300 in council tax. If they cut my money off I’ll lose my flat. I’m also totally in the dark over when the ESA will come through. To state the brutal truth, it’s bully boy tactics.” James has submitted a request for a review of the decision to sanction him.

As Polly Toynbee points out in the The Guardian here, “Jobcentre Plus offices have become sanction factories”, with staff under massive pressure to cut people off. She mentions the case this summer of a diabetic former solider, who was “sanctioned into starvation” and who tragically died.

Does anyone in the system responsible for these welfare policies – including setting up a Work Programme described by the Government as “offering personalised support for claimants who need more help looking for and staying in work” – genuinely believe that giving James a three-month sanction that forces him to the food bank will ultimately lead him closer to a job and a more secure and healthy future?

Many thanks to James and to all the food bank clients who are prepared to share their experiences.