Page 58 - Reforming Benefits Decision-Making -(updated - August 2021)

account complex needs, vulnerabilities, health conditions and the pandemic.
The Framework does not specify who or where they should gather evidence
from. We recommend that as part of their evidence gathering, work
coaches should contact and take into account information from relevant
individuals, such as a claimant’s carer, who the claimant consents for
them to contact. This is particularly important for claimants with mental
health conditions who can find it difficult to explain their reasons for non-
compliance due to a lack of self-confidence or problem-solving capabilities.
157
2.70 Another positive development from the Sanctions Assurance Framework is
the requirement for work coaches to have a case conference with their team
leader before making a referral to a decision-maker. If it cannot be confirmed
that a pre-referral team leader case conference has been undertaken, the
decision-maker must cancel and return the referral. If the decision-maker
decides a sanction is appropriate, they too must also hold a case conference
with their team leader to confirm that in the particular circumstances of the
case this is the correct course of action.

2.71 We welcome the additional guidance and procedures put in place by the
Sanctions Assurance Framework, however it will be necessary to monitor its
implementation and impact (for which better data collection is required (see
paragraph 2.57 above)). If it is successful, we would like to see the
requirements placed on a statutory footing, to give them greater force and
more permanency.

Opportunities to avoid sanction

2.72 In addition to the above changes, we agree with the Work and Pensions
Select Committee and others that a warning or ‘yellow card’ should be
issued for a first failure to comply with the claimant commitment. The
warning should be clearly communicated to the claimant via their
preferred method of communication. It should be used only in cases
where the claimant would otherwise by sanctioned i.e. they do not have a
good reason for failure to comply, and not as a substitute for the proper

157 N. Bond et al., The Benefits Assault Course (see n. 50 above) p. 31.

49