It is a requirement of entitlement for Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) that a job seeker takes steps to find work every week. Unfortunately, the powers given to Jobcentre Plus are at times exercised to undermine this very process, acting to destroy a person’s chances of finding work. Of wider significance it appears that Lord Freud’s own statement on how Jobcentre Plus staff are supposed to take decisions is being flouted by the deliberate taking of unreasonable decisions, unlawful following the Wednesbury principles.

The irrational attitude displayed by some branches of Jobcentre Plus towards individuals on Job Seeker’s Allowance was illustrated in a recent case reported to Z2K. ‘Dr Kay’ was perversely ordered by his local Jobcentre to attend in person every day and sign at  1pm at his local office, notwithstanding that the office admitted it had no  vacancies suitable for him, nor practical suggestions appropriate to the conduct his job search. Dr Kay had paid many years of national insurance contributions and was a former civil servant who whilst employed had been given a high security clearance with respect to the sensitivity of his work. This ended in the summer of 2012 and thereafter he had not claimed benefit until his own savings and resources had been exhausted.

Whilst daily signing has sometimes been reported as a requirement with homeless people this was not only a pointless and irrational direction but one which effectively undermined Dr Kay’s daily search for work, since many key contacts for him were with staff at academic institutions who could only be contacted during lunch-times.

Backed by Z2K Dr Kay challenged Jobcentre Plus by way of a complaint. He also served an appeal letter demanding the daily attendance direction to be referred to the Lower Tier Tribunal as a formal appeal. This was served by hand on the office.

The result on receipt of appeal was a swift apology from the Jobcentre manager – blaming administrative error and the immediate withdrawal of the daily signing declaration so Dr Kay could continue his job search. Dr Kay’s description of the panicked reaction at the branch of Jobcentre Plus to the receipt of his personally served appeal letter resembled that in other DWP offices where similar formal appeals have been lodged. This suggests that staff know what is going – why otherwise the hasty reaction to avoid impartial scrutiny?

No proper explanation has yet been forthcoming for this “administrative error”; it is regrettably another example of the deficiencies and self-defeating nature of the system currently operating which tries to control and sanction claimants.  This suggests that, despite the official denials from Ian Duncan Smith, there remain targets for sanctions. Despite what has been said by Ministers, it appears that within the DWP there are officials who are persisting in operating administration practices which works to undermine claimants. Jobcentre Plus can still employ tactics which have the effect of forcing individuals off benefits by undermining them with unachievable and irrational directions.

One possibility is that Dr Kay was victim of a practice which works for the internal purposes in pacifying the demands of Ministers. If so, this means the needs of top civil service management are thus being put ahead of the interests of claimants, rather than presenting Ministers with the real picture or revealing to them that the policy of the government is out of touch with reality and its policies are actually damaging the unemployed.

Z2K’s long held concerns about the mechanisms for fine collection were highlighted earlier this year in the case of R (on the application of Purnell) v South Western Magistrates’ Court. This appeal related to the failures in means inquiries in the magistrates’ courts, but most significantly the decision revealed the breakdown of administration of fines in the magistrates’ court system in London.

The closure of courts and the centralisation of their administration in London has led to a situation where fines, penalties and costs are being recorded on four separate databases.  One was established for the North East of London, one for the North West, one for the centre and South East, and one for the South West. Continue reading →

Z2K has helped a Hackney taxpayer obtain the cancellation of a liability order for a council tax bill sent to him five years after he left a property. On December 20^th 2012 magistrates quashed a liability order for over £2,000 obtained by Hackney Council against Mr David O’Shaughnessy.

This was the latest chapter in a case affecting Mr O’Shaughnessy who has had to go through two hearings before the Valuation Tribunal England (VTE) to rid himself of the liability order and repeated claims that he was liable for council tax on a property he left in 2004. First Mr O’Shaughnessy was wrongly held liable for council tax by Hackney Council, and then the property company who had let a room to him a decade earlier tried to avoid liability for the tax as owner of the dwelling. This necessitated a second VTE hearing over the house which had actually been demolished for re-development in 2004 after Mr O’Shaughnessy and other residents were ordered to leave.

Continue reading →

The “sticks not carrots” approach to welfare legislation enacted in recent years is having increasing knock on effects ahead of the benefit cap and undermining justice.

Sarah (pseudonym) was a former business woman from the Middle East forced to flee after her shop and all her possessions were destroyed during a conflict. She is disabled with mobility problems and traumatised, and is being supported with many daily tasks by her adult son. She has two teenage children who also do the best they can to care for her. She lived in Westminster and in December 2011 her Employment Support Allowance was stopped when ATOS deemed her fit to work. Continue reading →

On the evening of October 16^th 2012 the House of Lords rejected a Z2K backed amendment to protect the poorest from the effects of the abolition council tax benefit in 2013. Their Lordships then went off for dinner.

Next year there are going to be lot of poor people in England and Wales who will be missing their dinner, as a consequence of the vote, or ”division” as it is known in the Lords. This was a point that was not lost on many Peers. A number of the Lords who spoke for the amendment and similar ones, clearly realised that trying to get 20% of the council tax out of tiny amounts of income and benefit is a recipe for disaster, both for them, for local government and the future of the council tax, which was based upon John Major’s promise in 1992 that 100% benefits would be provided for the poorest, those on low incomes and benefits.

A number of their Lordships – those with knowledge of what those at the bottom of British society experience – understood exactly what will happen next year.  Unfortunately, neither the simple economics, nor the practical difficulties of trying to squeeze tiny amounts of council tax from people who increasingly struggle to find enough money to feed their families were understood by Lady Hanham. The question of how council tax will be obtained from the poorest amid other benefit cuts and caps which all come into effect in April 2013 was not explained, amid the recitation of the mantra that steps must be taken to cut the deficit.

Even the spectre at the feast in the form of Lord Best, who was a Government Minister at the time of the poll tax 1990-93 warning peers not to repeat the mistakes of the last Thatcher Government went unheeded. More than anyone in the Chamber, he was a witness to the fact that forcing the poorest into a choice between food and paying tax is a disaster.

As a test of understanding Lady Meacher forced the amendment to a Division before dinner. This at least revealed an improvement the Peers’ understanding of the issues. The amendment to protect the poor was lost on a division which revealed 139 votes to 185 against. This was certainly a better performance than in 1992-93 when the Lords were last asked to give 100% benefit to the poor, during the last year of the poll tax – the Government had a majority of 143 rejecting the idea on that occasion.

Interesting, Lady Meacher cited not only facts but the moral position, an aspect all too often omitted in debates over welfare spending. On that point it may be worth looking at one of the most important readings on the topic of division and treatment of the poor in the New Testament. Whilst a cynic might sense that in ignoring Lord Best’s warnings – joined by Lord Jenkins on October 23rd – might be a case of “turkeys voting for Christmas”, the moral issue is doubtless going to surface again.

On the concept of division, the parable of a division of the sheep and the goats in the words of Jesus comes to mind, set down in Matthew 25, v 30-45. This is the parable of Last Judgment:

“All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people from one another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats….”.

The basis of the division is upon how those with power and resources treat the vulnerable:

“For I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in. I needed clothes and you clothed me. I was sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you came to visit me….I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me”.

The purpose of local taxation historically is to raise money to look after the poorest and most vulnerable in the community, from the Poor Rate Act 1601 to the General Rates until 1989. With the poll tax 1990-93 this principle was turned on its head with disastrous results. The council tax 1993-2012 recognised this, abolishing poll tax and providing 100% benefits for those on benefits and low incomes, an essential cornerstone of the system.

The Third Reading of the Bill is due before the House of Commons on October 31st. This will be the final opportunity for the Government to reverse its plan to remove 100% benefit from the poorest. It is the most significant vote of its kind in twenty years, with Lord Jenkin another former Minister responsible for the poll tax expressing his concerns on October 23rd 2012, warning the government not to repeat the same mistake made before.

If the Government does not reverse this measure, what happens in 2013 will certainly prove a judgment of our nation for years to come.

‘As though urgest justice, thou shalt have justice, more than thou desireth’ 

Shakespeare’s words  from The Merchant of Venice ought sound a warning to those who have been instrumental in sanctioning the benefits of the unemployed and promoting the philosophy that claimants  ‘need sticks rather than the carrots’ to be goaded into work.

Private Eye (24 – 31^st August 2012) details the problems with Working Links, a private company paid by the Government for Work Programme services. Working Links has warned its staff it is facing “serious financial challenges” because of missing targets with claimants. Other people may recognise this development  as “cause and effect” or “the law of unintended consequences”. As the chief of Interim has now stated: ”By far the biggest part of our business is the Work Programme [and]…we are not finding work for as many people as we had planned.” Continue reading →