My wife spent over 20 years working in the DWP and prior to that the DHSS - it made no difference what Party was in power as mistakes in the calculation of benefit were made every day. The primary reason is that the system is so complicated and keeps changing irrespective of who is in power at any particular time.
Which is why a Universal Basic Income is a good idea but that will never get off the ground in the UK as there would be too many losing out.
No excuse for lacking humanity. Plenty must have known about his case, seen how ill he was, and what was happening.
Makes me wonder why no-one stepped in and the mistake continued. Were people that scared to go against policy they just rolled with it?
It's not like we're talking about wrongly depriving a healthy person of a few quid, or something like a basic mistake - which I'm sure happen and are corrected many times over.
This was some next level cruelty and a man lost his life.
I doubt that - just normal people trying to operate a complex system.
Then it is the responsibility of the people at the top to ensure there is enough protections, guidance and safety margins to allow for any issues that arise from that complexity.
It is a political and ethical decision to err on the side of caution either in favour of the individual or the DWP.
In any grey area, complication or problem, it is the choice to:
a) automatically cut or deny money to the 'client' until the issue is sorted.
or
b) remain paying the 'client' until it the issue is sorted.
That fundamentally changed around 8 or 9 years ago.
It went from erring on the side of the client to erring on the side of the DWP/Government.
At first is was just for the unemployed job seekers, then they brought in the same measures for the sick and disabled.
There is a big difference between a clerical error and a decision made about a possible error.
If something is missing or there is a problem, deciding to automatically cut someones money until the problem is rectified is considerably different from a typo or misfileing.
Especially when that can and does result in desperate and vulnerable people being left without money due to a decision by the DWP that turns out to be their fault.
The client is essentially guilty of fraud or non qualification for benefits and assistance until proven innocent and entitled.
No point trying to explain it to certain members on here mate. It's clearly beyond their comprehension.
Unfortunately the real world doesn't work like that
It did not - it has never been DWP/DHSS policy to pay out any claim while a re-assessment is taking place.
That has always been the case since the introduction of the welfare state. If the system makes an error then the individual suffers the consequences of that error until the system reimburses any lost funds after it has investigated a complaint.
The idea that this is something new is for the fairies..
I have to agree with that post.
An application for DLA has three potentialstages where a decision can be made, i assume PIP and the like follows a similar process with the added possibility of face to face meetings.
At the first stage it's the application form, a thick booklet self repeating and overly complicated and in most ways rather pointless. The reason I say this is that a good application without third party support will always get declined whilst a crap application with good third party support will more often get a positive result (I am talking doctors, schools and other professionals which support the claim), depending on the backlog its usually 8-12 weeks for a decision
Mandatory reconsideration, introduced approx 2013, at this stage the DWP explain the decision and give you an option to get it reviewed and provide any further info which my help your claim, takes approx 4-6 weeks depending on when information was submitted although for my eldest the wait was 6 months but this was only a part dispute (mobility) and was paid the original award whilst waiting.
Tribunal, typically several months after the mandatory reconsideration.
When the mandatory reconsideration was brought in the DWP had a perfomance indicator attached to it, was something like 8 out of every 10 decisions to be upheld.
During this time cases which went to tribunal had a success rate of around 7 of every 10 applicants.
There where also claimants who found the thought of going to tribunal to stressful so never bothered.
It seems fairly obvious to me that attaching such an indicator effected decision making.
That is just a plain falsehood.
Up until October 2013, if you applied for Incapacity Benefit, DLA including when those changed to Employment Support Allowance or Personal Independence Payment, you were entitled to those benefits during an appeal process.
However, since October 2013, if the claim is disputed by the DWP, the inclusion of a Mandatory Reconsideration meant that until it had been completed, no benefits would be paid.
The process involved two mandatory reconsiderations before it could be officially appealed and enable the claiment access to any basic money to live off.
There is no time limit on how long those double mandatory re assessments can take and in some cases may go on for many months.
It is possible to claim JSA (Job Seekers Allowance) while waiting for a mandatory reassessment, but you are then subject to the requirements to be available for work and prove you are looking/getting to the job centre appointments etc.
That means many people who are disabled and sick can't meet the requirements and are sanctioned, effectively removing access to any benefits.
There also used to be a system of emergency loans that were for people in desperate need, like during the wait for a claim to be approved.
Those have also been removed.
I personally had to rely on Emergency Loans to cover gaps between an initial claim and the initial decision by the DWP before either being approved or being able to request an appeal and receive benefits.
So either you are ill informed or deliberately providing misleading information - either way you should not be informing us of what is and what is not the case with Benefits System.
You might want to rethink that one.