Page 60 - Reforming Benefits Decision-Making -(updated - August 2021)

not implement the changes proposed by the Select Committee. 161 However, it
is important to note that:

a) The trial did have an impact on the quality of evidence initially provided
by work coaches and the evaluation recommended reviewing the
procedures for referral of sanction decisions from the work coach to the
decision-maker.
b) There was variability in the role of work coaches and the extent to which
they supported claimants in gathering evidence as well as variability in
the extent to which decision-makers engaged with claimants (for
example via verbally gathering evidence).
c) Staff felt that they could have benefited from more time to prepare and
more resources to deliver the trial.
d) Some claimants felt that the 14 days might not be sufficient to provide
some forms of evidence, for example, from GPs, hospitals or former
employers.
e) Claimants were not aware of the range of good reasons against a
sanction, were not always aware of how to provide evidence and said
they had little understanding of their claimant commitment. Claimants
with medium or high support needs would have been unlikely to be able
to provide compelling evidence without assistance.

2.75 Given the severe impact that sanctions can have on claimants’ lives, we agree
that there is value in providing claimants with an additional opportunity to
explain their reason for noncompliance. We therefore recommend that a
further pilot and evaluation of an ‘early warning system’ should be
carried out. This time, claimants should be provided with more than 14
days to provide further evidence, claimants should be made aware of
what a ‘good reason’ might be and what appropriate evidence might look
like, and the DWP should ensure that communication with the claimant
is appropriate for that particular claimant in terms of language and any
disability or vulnerability.

161 Work and Pensions Committee, Benefits sanctions: Government Response (see n. 155 above) para
89.

51