The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Hardship) (Amendment) Regulations 2017

Go down

The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Hardship) (Amendment) Regulations 2017

Post by helping_hand on Sun Jul 30, 2017 6:11 pm

(This note is not part of the Regulations)

Regulation 2 of these Regulations amends the Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 1996 (S.I. 1996/207).

The amendments in paragraph (2)(a) and (d) provide that a person with a long-term mental impairment, or who is homeless within the meaning of legislation applying respectively in England, Wales and Scotland, is a person in hardship for the purposes of those Regulations. This means that the person may receive immediate hardship payments of jobseeker’s allowance in cases where that allowance would otherwise not be paid or the amount paid is being reduced.

The amendments in paragraph (4)(a) and (d) make identical provision in relation to a couple claiming jobseeker’s allowance where either member of the couple has a mental impairment or is homeless.

Paragraphs (2)(c) and (4)(c) make consequential amendments and paragraphs (2)(b), (3) and (4)(b) make previously missed consequential amendments.

An impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as it has no impact on business or civil society organisations.

People with a mental health condition and/or a learning disability are more like to be sanctioned than those without these conditions.

I am aware of many cases and was personally involved with a person with a lifelong health conditions who was left without money for nearly 3 months following a sanction, and then suffered 2 subsequent unlawful sanctions despite begging the Jobcentre for assistance.  At the time, it was agreed by DWP following the Oakley review that vulnerable people were entitled to Hardship immediately!

Although the new legislation is welcomed it should not be necessary.

Prior to the Jobseeker's Act 1995, there were no sanctions and claimants could claim assistance immediately.  

Unemployment Benefits were stopped (disallowed) if the basic insurance regulation were not met i.e. 'failure to attend', availability and actively seeking work (1-3 actions); warnings were issued and people were encouraged to provide as much information as possible to escape a dis-allowance of 1 day, 1 or 2 weeks.  

All the available research shows that conditionality is not effective financially or otherwise.  However, no major political party has actively challenged the Welfare Reform Acts 2012 & 13, which are the most draconian regulations that have ever existed.

My view is, that a Universal Basic Income is the solution.

I have been influenced by my own research and comments made on various forums including this one!  Very Happy

Last edited by helping_hand on Mon Jul 31, 2017 1:42 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Year of JA)

Posts : 163
Points : 354
Reputation : 79
Join date : 2017-07-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum