Two snippets from a statement issued by DWP on 7th June 2018. Useful to know for claimants concerned about transitional arrangements.

The Government have already made a commitment that anyone who is moved to universal credit without a change of circumstance will not lose out in cash terms. Transitional protection will be provided to eligible claimants to safeguard their existing benefit entitlement until their circumstances change.

The process of migrating claimants on legacy benefits will begin in July 2019 as previously announced. In order to make the changes to the system it will be necessary to extend the completion of UC to March 2023. As throughout UC roll out, we will keep the exact timetable under review to do what is sensible from a delivery and fiscal perspective.

Full statement on link:
hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-06-07/debates/18060727000016/UniversalCredit

Benefit Bolshie wrote:
And that is Like How Many Years BEHIND the Original Completion Date ?, And at a cost of Just How many Millions of Pounds
of Tax Payers Money to

Just imagine how many missed rent payments, evictions and increase in homeless and deaths aided by failing health trusts by March 2023. Total all out chaos! Hopefully this is the length of rope which this govt finally hang themselves with.

According to the recent National Audit Office report on the rolling out of Universal Credit (UC) less than 10% of claimants have gone over to UC, and it has already cost just under £2bn. This means that 90% of claimants remain on the ‘legacy’ benefits.

Full NAO Report:
www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Rolling-out-Universal-Credit.pdf

This report was rubbished by DWP who claim it is out of date. A more up to date report would be welcome which would show that, far from improving, the situation is getting worse.

The thread started by Paul about the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) undertaking a thorough scrutiny of what’s going on should give an up to date picture of the current state of affairs that DWP will not be able to ignore or trash:

welfarecentral.org/index.php/forum-home/universal-credit/1805-the-dwp-s-controversial-policy-is-now-under-scrutiny-by-a-top-government-committee

This committee is expected to report back in 2 months.

I don’t think it is mere coincidence that claimants currently on ‘legacy benefits’ might be being conned into ‘voluntarily’ starting the process of transferring or signing up to UC under the pretext of compulsion only to be faced with a fait accompli, once begun, of having done something that could then be regarded as a ‘change of circumstances’ and thus compelled to continue to transfer before the otherwise required date of 19th July 2019.

By using such deceptions I’m sure the 10% figure would rise significantly. Or is this being too cynical?

Given the letter member blackbeard recently got and acted upon, you could have a point there BB. The statement within such a letter saying your UC payments `could or will be affected` would be enough to trigger claimants into actioning such a change, but turn out to be a cry wolf attempt make claimants take such an action when they have no need to. It`s the `Your UC payments could/will be affected` part that would be the trigger point.

blackbeard`s letter started:

you need to switch to the new universal credit online service
if you dont by 1/01/08 your payment/claim may stop etc

Your payment/claim MAY stop. Not WILL stop.

Every letter from DWP or JCP carry the same dire warnings of the consequences of not doing what they have decided you must do, whether what they are asking is reasonable or legal or not. This is the ‘culture of fear’ that IDS used to rant on about years ago. I thought most people had got wise to that one years age.

Yesterday I posted a link to a statement from The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Ms Esther McVey) no less, which says (among other things):

“The process of migrating claimants on legacy benefits will begin in July 2019 as previously announced”.

The letter of which you speak, threatening dire consequences unless the recipient began migrating or transferring within a week is, in my view, a direct contradiction of that statement.

They can’t both be right, can they?

Despite it being suggested that he contact his coach for clarification the recipient proceeded to initiate the transfer, which, as it turned out required him to see his coach in the end after all.

His coach, according to himself, appeared to be unaware of what the hell was going on, as was the JCP manager. It didn’t take them long, however, to be put in the picture and to fall in with the ‘con’.

They soon encouraged him to go on and to complete a process not dissimilar to the one undertaken when making his initial claim.

By this time he was persuaded that his circumstances had now changed and that, to all intents and purposes, he was now starting a new claim, which is, in fact, what happened.

The only thing that changed was the chain of events set in motion by changes initiated by himself to his benefit status by foul means and in total contravention of the law as it stands.

Please be advised that this is my interpretation of what has transpired in the example you quoted. The claimant referenced in your example has indicated his satisfaction with the outcome and the consequences of his actions from his point of view and I would not even attempt to persuade him otherwise.

From my point of view, I would have opted for a different course of action. Others, as always, will decide for themselves, after all, they will have to live with it.

BB wrote: The only thing that changed was the chain of events set in motion by changes initiated by himself to his benefit status by foul means and in total contravention of the law as it stands.

Foul means indeed. But how are we to know whether to take this action or not though when receiving such letters? I`m just trying to find out why blackbeard (and no doubt other people) will be receiving these letters to make a new claim for UC when UC already have their verified details but seem to be saying that, `we need you to switch to the UC online service` as some ploy to dupe us into believing it`s a given, rather than a choice, by saying our UC claim `may` be affected. Even though they don`t use the word `will` be affected, it`s enough of a threat to make people start a chain of events they don`t feel are necessary, but because of the wording on the letter we obey like good little jobseekers, which is what they want.

It stinks the way they manipulate these actions and are probably doing it knowing most people will fear the chop if they don`t. Nobody knows what the hell is going on.

Further to Paul’s post (linked above):

The Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) is consulting on proposals to move existing claimants in receipt of a working age income-related benefit to Universal Credit.

It would be convenient to include the following links here since they relate directly to the topic under discussion

Government proposal to move claimants on 'legacy' benefits to Universal Credit: consultation announced
www.gov.uk/government/news/government-proposal-to-move-claimants-on-legacy-benefits-to-universal-credit-consultation-announced


The Government’s documents setting out the proposals at this link:
www.gov.uk/government/consultations/moving-claimants-to-universal-credit-from-other-working-age-benefits

Those documents, along with the findings and proposals of the SSAC are due to be put before Parliament later this year.

The SSAC welcomes comments from all and sundry in the next couple of months, so here’s your chance to put your two-pennorth in.


PS: It's nearly 7pm and there's something on the telly I'd like to watch for the next 90 mins or so