Z2K is a partner in the Pimlico Advice Hub, along with the Cardinal Hulme centre and Westminster Foodbank, where we provide advice and support. The Hub is based in St Gabriel’s Hall on the Churchill Gardens estate in Pimlico. It was recently nominated for the best neighbourhood project award at the Westminster Community Awards.
Geoff and his partner approached the Hub in early 2016. The couple were facing eviction from their Council property due to rent arrears. The reason for this was that his Housing Benefit had stopped. They had recently started their own business, their own café. This had been their dream for years but the practicalities of starting the business had caused them many difficulties. They had had to take out a large loan to start up the business. As they couldn’t qualify for a business loan their bank had classified it as a personal loan. When the council realised they had the loan they stopped their Housing Benefit as it took them over the capital limits. The Council also made frequent and unnecessary requests pertaining to Geoff’s status as an EU national. Continue reading
One of the most common issues Z2K assists clients with is housing benefit over payments. A common cause of rent arrears, the first time a client normally realises they have been overpaid is when they receive an over payment notice and realise their housing benefit has been suspended.
When a client comes to Z2K having been told they have been overpaid housing benefit the priority will be getting their housing benefit back into payment, if it has been suspended, and then appealing the decision or if that is not an option asking for an underlying entitlement. The decision letter sent to the client is crucial in alerting the client about what has happened and allowing us to act on their behalf. This is especially true when the scales are tipped so firmly against claimants in over payment cases. Claimants are liable to repay over payments even if an official error has occurred, unless they can prove that they could not have known an over payment occurred. Councils set that particular bar very high, essentially viewing every claimant as a maths genius moonlighting as a benefits claimant. Continue reading
At the age of 56 Ms. Hussein found that she was no longer able to work, for the first time in her adult life. A few months previously Ms. Hussein had lost her right eye and become partially sighted in the other. She was struggling to adapt to being partially sighted and frequently fell or bumped into people and objects. She had also developed severe incontinence as the result of a botched operation. She was advised to make an Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) application and she did so. Continue reading
One recent successful Personal Independence Payment (PIP) appeal provides us with a clear example of how the DWP fails to use the Mandatory Reconsideration (MR) stage to properly revaluate their decision.
Mr Tonbridge came to Z2K because he wanted to appeal a decision regarding his PIP award. Having been transferred from DLA he had only been awarded the standard rate for mobility and consequently had immediately lost the use of his mobility car. When a decision is made there is no grace period allowing for appeals and so Mr Tonbridge found himself without the use of a vehicle which had been his only means of getting around. In effect the decision led to a complete loss of independence for Mr Tonbridge. Continue reading
Ms Chaudhary came to Z2K a few months ago very distressed as her Income Support had been stopped and she had incurred an overpayment for the same benefit. Ms Chaudhary lives as a lone parent with 5 children aged between 10 months and 23 years. She received £107.70 a week from income support. Ms Chaudhary is a full time carer for one of her sons and so relies on Carers Allowance, Child Benefit and Income Support as her only source of income.
Ms Chaudhary’s Income Support had stopped because the DWP had decided that on the balance of probability she was living with her former partner, who works more than 24 hours a week. Had this been the case Ms Chaudhary would not be entitled to Income Support. However it was clear that the DWP had made an incorrect decision. Ms Chaudhary has not lived with her former partner for some time. However her partner, who is the father of her children, visits her address on an average of 2-3 nights a week to see his kids. During nights he was on call as a taxi driver. He would often sit up during those nights at Ms Chaudhary’s house waiting to be called out on a job. Continue reading