I have signed on the dole again, online, and have an interview with the local JobCentrePlusNoJobs on Thursday. My last contract finished on 1st March. Because I needed to visit my sick mother in France, I was unable to sign on immediately, you are not allowed to leave the country. In principle, I cannot disagree with this policy; in practice because my mother is old, unwell and lives abroad, it is a hindrance. On the plus side, it is difficult to be able to afford to visit her so at least it serves to prevent me getting more in debt.
I no longer have any savings, so signing on is an obligation not a lifestyle choice. However it was still very tempting not to sign-on for a few weeks and hope that a job would come up quickly. The entire process is grim. The forms are lengthy and awkwardly worded, as are the interviews. There are reams of papers for applicants to sign, confirming that what they have said is true and that they have understood the get into jail free clauses. I am determined that this will be the last time I ever sign on, but as there is no longer a guarantee of work anywhere, I have saved a copy of the form. The fear of getting something wrong is too great, one box ticked differently from before might seem indicative of wanton fraud. Possibly this is highly unlikely, but it is how you are made to feel. I am already dreading the interview and any possible accusation of 'last time you said'. The form takes at least an hour to complete and it is like a test. The irony of it is that anyone submitting a fraudulent claim will probably pass with flying colours, they are old hands at it and meticulous in their detail. I am reminded of a stint working in an incident enquiry room for the police, many years ago. The accused did not have English as a first language, and in his taped interviews there was a clear difference in his answers, some were in perfect English and confidently delivered, others in very poor English, hesitantly delivered with much stuttering. Ironically the broken English answers matched the facts of the case, the fluent answers did not, possibly being rehearsed set answers. That is me - broken English and stumbling answers, fear of being found 'guilty' because I ticked a wrong box. Guilty of what though, other than being poor and needing a helping hand?
DWP interviews are more interrogation than conversation, based on a dole officer's interpretation of the boxes you ticked and any additional answers. Last March, when I signed on for the first time in years, this interview was carried out by a very new, poorly trained and seemingly incompetent member of staff. I took notes, to which she objected. This time I am tempted to record the interview, because so many errors were made. It is not individuals' fault that they are poorly trained. To some extent their attitude of mistrust is not their fault either, I presume this will have been instilled into them and forms the bulk of whatever process serves as training these days. However it should not be like this. Signing on should not feel like a crime, and yet it does. It is as if the claimant is accused of the crime of submitting a fraudulent claim and is presumed guilty until they can prove themselves innocent. DWP is steeling itself for battle against the unworthy and undeserving poor, ripping off the taxpayers. Neither should the process feel as humiliating as it does. It isn't a handout, it is a safety net, albeit a safety net with gaping holes in it through which many of those most in need slip. I am already angry at the thought of being submitted to the interrogation, even whilst I rage at those living in £1,000 a month homes funded by taxpayers. Probably there are only one or two such cases, they just get reported a lot in certain sectors of the media. I can't have it both ways, I can't claim and want to be seen as a genuine claimant when I rage at other claimants.
My attitude of fear and anger when put together with an interviewing officer's attitude of mistrust is not an omen for a pleasant experience for either of us. Long gone are the days when DWP was tasked with getting people back into work, now the target is 'getting people off benefits' through any means possible. However, I will do them the courtesy of presuming they are competent. In return I would like to think my claim is treated fairly. More trust and less anger on my part is called for here. I cannot control how DWP and its staff behave, I can control how I behave and must do so. This may seem obvious to most people, but I suspect that group would be 'most people who have not had to sign on the dole recently'. In fairness, a culture of suspicion and ridiculous 'targets' must be a burden on the staff themselves. Bearing that in mind makes it easier to go in with an attitude of empathy, rather than in my normal state - which is just with an attitude.
Wednesday, 3 April 2013
Sunday, 31 March 2013
The disadvantage of benefits
I couldn't see the fuss about the so-called 'bedroom tax'. It wasn't a tax as far as I was concerned, it was just a way of balancing out home sizes for people in socially funded accommodation, nothing was being taken away from people, they were merely being given less if they didn't 'need' the bedrooms. Having recently been on benefits, I also found that it irked that I got so little, having paid tax all my working life, 29 years, and yet those who have never contributed to the system were seemingly being given more than the average national wage in benefits. I think like that, and I don't even read the Daily Mail. It bothers me that I think like that, and it bothers me that I was so willing to accept that cutting benefits without thought is, was or could be acceptable.
A friend who works in housing and who is also far more compassionate than I am explained it to me in more detail. The benefit is cut where the local authority deem a tenant has more bedrooms than they need. The person or family in that accommodation has to find the money AND if they can't pay in the long-term should 'plan ahead' by finding a smaller property. But it is the tenants themselves who have to find a smaller property that will accept them, that isn't done for them. The government is not saying 'we think you don't need a house that size, we have a smaller property for you', they are being 'encouraged' to either move, pay more or, if they can't pay, get into debt.
Even more cruelly, if tenants cannot pay the extra sum and end up in debt over housing costs, they cannot be transferred by their local authority. The rules state that housing debt is not taken with you to a new tenancy if you move /are moved. It is the responsibility of the relevant housing provider to pursue arrears. This seems to result in a tacit policy of 'don't move those who owe'. Most housing providers won't consider moving tenants if they have arrears and a new landlord generally won't consider accepting tenants who have arrears. The exception is if a household is considered vulnerable - in this case the housing provider would have to evict them for arrears, and then they would immediately be picked up by the local authority and put back on the cycle of being homeless, housed in temporary accommodation (usually very unsuitable) and then eventually rehoused. The result is huge stress for the household, a costly legal process for the housing provider and the local authority has the expense of housing them anyway - this has a threefold impact on the taxpayer ... you and I, the people who are meant to be better off and happier by putting people through this stress. Households who are not considered to be vulnerable will be evicted onto the street.
Are politicians really saying that putting people on the street is a saving for taxpayers? Are they really saying 'this will win votes? Have they learned nothing from Spain's example? For many it will be be a particularly vicious catch 22 - they can't transfer to somewhere else if they can't pay the extra money, and yet they can't pay the money if they have no extra income to make up the shortfall. There is a shortage in social housing, so where are they expected to move to? Many private landlords are loathe to lend to social tenants because the social services do not pay the rent directly to landlords, they pay it to the tenants. Social tenants are deemed feckless and untrustworthy.
Calling it 'bedroom tax' or call it 'housing benefit reform' makes little difference. To the right it was a presumed vote winner under the guise of 'not taking money from hardworking taxpayers' To the left it is now a gift of a vote winner because it is a reform that has been so badly thought out. It shouldn't be about votes, it should be about treating people fairly. Create jobs, create opportunities, build affordable homes, give everyone a better standard of living, then start looking at taking away benefits. The country is so badly in debt, what is another billion when the alternative is making people homeless through no actual fault of their own? The government appears to be dabbling in the business of becoming a slum landlord.
It may seem unfair that some people on benefits are being paid more than those in employment, but how is evicting people a way of redressing the balance? The benefits system is there to provide a safety net. From experience I know that it does not provide enough to live on. Where households receive more in benefits than those in work, it is because they have been assessed as in need. It is more of a reflection on low wages than on over-generous benefits. Cost cutting policies during a recession should not hit those most in need and it should definitely not hit them the hardest. I don't see how making the poor even poorer will help us out of a recession.
(Huge thank you to friend who provided the insight into local authority housing)
A friend who works in housing and who is also far more compassionate than I am explained it to me in more detail. The benefit is cut where the local authority deem a tenant has more bedrooms than they need. The person or family in that accommodation has to find the money AND if they can't pay in the long-term should 'plan ahead' by finding a smaller property. But it is the tenants themselves who have to find a smaller property that will accept them, that isn't done for them. The government is not saying 'we think you don't need a house that size, we have a smaller property for you', they are being 'encouraged' to either move, pay more or, if they can't pay, get into debt.
Even more cruelly, if tenants cannot pay the extra sum and end up in debt over housing costs, they cannot be transferred by their local authority. The rules state that housing debt is not taken with you to a new tenancy if you move /are moved. It is the responsibility of the relevant housing provider to pursue arrears. This seems to result in a tacit policy of 'don't move those who owe'. Most housing providers won't consider moving tenants if they have arrears and a new landlord generally won't consider accepting tenants who have arrears. The exception is if a household is considered vulnerable - in this case the housing provider would have to evict them for arrears, and then they would immediately be picked up by the local authority and put back on the cycle of being homeless, housed in temporary accommodation (usually very unsuitable) and then eventually rehoused. The result is huge stress for the household, a costly legal process for the housing provider and the local authority has the expense of housing them anyway - this has a threefold impact on the taxpayer ... you and I, the people who are meant to be better off and happier by putting people through this stress. Households who are not considered to be vulnerable will be evicted onto the street.
Are politicians really saying that putting people on the street is a saving for taxpayers? Are they really saying 'this will win votes? Have they learned nothing from Spain's example? For many it will be be a particularly vicious catch 22 - they can't transfer to somewhere else if they can't pay the extra money, and yet they can't pay the money if they have no extra income to make up the shortfall. There is a shortage in social housing, so where are they expected to move to? Many private landlords are loathe to lend to social tenants because the social services do not pay the rent directly to landlords, they pay it to the tenants. Social tenants are deemed feckless and untrustworthy.
Calling it 'bedroom tax' or call it 'housing benefit reform' makes little difference. To the right it was a presumed vote winner under the guise of 'not taking money from hardworking taxpayers' To the left it is now a gift of a vote winner because it is a reform that has been so badly thought out. It shouldn't be about votes, it should be about treating people fairly. Create jobs, create opportunities, build affordable homes, give everyone a better standard of living, then start looking at taking away benefits. The country is so badly in debt, what is another billion when the alternative is making people homeless through no actual fault of their own? The government appears to be dabbling in the business of becoming a slum landlord.
It may seem unfair that some people on benefits are being paid more than those in employment, but how is evicting people a way of redressing the balance? The benefits system is there to provide a safety net. From experience I know that it does not provide enough to live on. Where households receive more in benefits than those in work, it is because they have been assessed as in need. It is more of a reflection on low wages than on over-generous benefits. Cost cutting policies during a recession should not hit those most in need and it should definitely not hit them the hardest. I don't see how making the poor even poorer will help us out of a recession.
(Huge thank you to friend who provided the insight into local authority housing)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)