Page 56 - Reforming Benefits Decision-Making

apply easements in circumstances that fall outside of the mandatory
easements.

Sanction decisions

2.65 Consultees we spoke to were concerned that sanctions decisions are not being
applied fairly. They told us that claimants are not being provided with
sufficient opportunity to explain their reasons for non-compliance, or worse,
that sanctions are being imposed despite there being a good reason for non-
compliance. For example, letters informing claimants of appointments not
150
being received prior to the date of the appointment, missing online
151
instructions or appointments due to an inability to access the online journal,
152
health reasons, including hospital visits.
2.66 The latest data on sanctions decisions which are available show that between
August 2015 and January 2019, 82 per cent of UC live service sanctions
decisions that were appealed were overturned. Even where sanctions
153
decisions are subsequently reversed, claimants will have already had their
benefit withdrawn and already suffered the often severe adverse consequences
154
that result. In addition, given the barriers to mandatory reconsideration and

150 G. McKeever, M. Simpson and C. Fitzpatrick, Destitution and Paths to Justice (see n. 3 above)
p.32.
151 See further Chapter 4 below regarding digital by default system.
152 See also Work and Pensions Committee, Benefits Sanctions (see n. 11 above) p.47 at Box 5, ‘Luke’s
Story’ – Luke was sanctioned for failure to attend a work-focused interview despite providing evidence
he had been hospitalised three days before his appointment due to multiple seizures.
153 DWP, ‘Data tables: benefit sanctions statistics to January 2019’ (27 February 2020) table 3_6. UC
Live Service was the original UC service that was built. It has subsequently been replaced with the Full
Service and claimants have been now transferred from the Live Service to the Full Service.
154 Although a successful challenge should result in a refund, this can take weeks or months, by which
time the adverse impact of the sanctions decision has already been felt. Around half of those who
interviewed for a report on destitution in the UK who had received a benefit sanction linked its
application to being unable to afford basic essentials (S. Fitzpatrick et al, Destitution in the UK (Joseph
Rowntree Foundation (2016)). Sanctions and delays become more difficult to manage when benefit
income is too low to enable claimants to protect against future income shocks. For a single person who
is out-of-work, social security only provides for a third of income needs and barely scrapes over the
Joseph Rowntree Foundation destitution threshold (G. McKeever, M. Simpson and C. Fitzpatrick,
Destitution and Paths to Justice (see n. 3 above) p. 39).

47