Housing benefit

That's appalling but sadly doesn't surprise me.

fullfact.org/blog/2015/aug/dwp_fake_benefits_claimants_leaflet_freedom_information-47306

Make sure they do not make anything up about you, vampire.

Vampire, justice may be served after all.

www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/19/public-relations-body-cipr-investigating-dwp-fake-welfare-claimants-leaflet

Keep your fingers and toes crossed.

That was on the news last night, nothing new. How it would help Vampirequeen I have no idea...

really? About the CIPD looking into it?

Forget phoning the people at HB office. Send detailed letter with dates, amounts etc and include copies of any previous correspondence between them and you. Send recorded delivery or get a receipt if handed in personally. Give them a deadline by which you want the matter resolved. If this fails go to your customer services dept at your local authority and say you want to make a formal complaint.

Or go straight to your local CAB. They might tell you to do the above or if it is more complicated than you have indicated above they might suggest you go in and see them for help.

How would it help Vampirequeen exactly?

Important to keep copies of everything and possibly a log of calls etc.

Karma.

Some news on our caring, sharing DWP :

"THE Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) has published guidelines to jobcentres acknowledging that social security sanctions actively damage the health of claimants.

The guidelines state that imposing benefit sanctions for two weeks or more will “usually” damage the health of a claimant. As has been widely reported, many social security sanctions last significantly longer than this, and are sometimes indefinite.

In a section on dealing with vulnerable members of society, official decision makers (DMs) were advised to consider whether the health and wellbeing of a vulnerable person would be damaged more than the average person.

The guideline states: "It would be usual for a normal healthy adult to suffer some deterioration in their health if they were without: 1. Essential items such as food, clothing, heating and accommodation, or 2. Sufficient money to buy essential items for a period of two weeks."

It goes on to state:"The DM must decided if the health of the person with the medical condition would decline more than a normal healthy adult.""

www.commonspace.scot/articles/2190/dwp-concedes-that-social-security-sanctions-harm-people-s-health

Perhaps we ought to see the ones who made up these rules without essential items or money to buy food, heating and accommodation for two weeks.

It's not about sending them the stuff they really need. I'm totally upfront with my claims. The minute something changes I phone and follow up with paper document. It is at this point that 'someone' decides they need more information even though you've already sent them everything you have. The pension providers are so used to this they're never surprised at what they're asked for.

It seems to me that the extras they ask for are just a way of delaying payment for some reason. It's OK for them the say they'll backdate the payments. Claimants still have to pay their rent.

The DWP instructions previously mentioned talks about being without accomodation for two weeks. When you lose your home they don't give you it back after two weeks. If you're evicted then that's it. You're homeless.

It appears from FarNorth's link that it is deemed acceptable to damage the health of a person, though not to such an extent that it might cause the individual to suffer a physical or mental health crisis and thus bring the DWP into disrepute. How a decision maker is supposed to arrive at such an assessment I really can't imagine. Is there some sort of algebraic formula whereby x degree of vulnerability will lead to y amount of damage to health?

So far as vampirequeen's situation is concerned, I agree with Flutterby123's advice to write down in chronological order everything that has happened and then to take such a report to the CAB and ask for their help in making an official complaint.

vampirequeen, I'm afraid I don't know anything about this area but reading what you have written I wonder if it is now time to take what must be a large file of correspondence along to your MPs surgery.

As has been said this seems to be delaying tactics and is wrong, wrong, wrong

Whilst I agree that a complaint could well be in order I'm not brave enough to do it.

When you're in the benefits system you very quickly learn that they have far more ways of getting at you than you have at them. Unless I was desperate I'd no more take them on than I would have taken on the Gestapo.

My sympathies vq and I know just what you mean,it applies to lots of areas . I made a complaint to my GP surgery when I was told lies by receptionists on 3 occaisions and it is now obvious that I am treated with disapproval by them. I know of people whse relatives were neglected in hospital and wouldn't complain because of the consequences. Sorry I went off topic.

I think it's a problem right across the system. They have the power and if you make a fuss they close ranks and get you.

I complained on Facebook about my poor excuse for a surgery. Then I changed Surgeries.

I do not have that option without a problem with transport. I have been at the surgery since 1968 and feel quite bitter at the way it has gone.

I do understand what you are saying VQ. I feel the same, to some extent, with any help, financial or physical, we get for my mother and my mother is certainly frightened if she thinks any negative comment would be made.

It's is so wrong that you are in this position though. They are really just using, or rather misusing the system to intimidate as many people as possible into dropping out. Heaven knows what happens to those who do not have your staying power.

When will Iain Duncan Smith be held to account?

voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/08/21/lie-after-lie-over-sanctions-and-foi-duncan-smiths-head-should-roll/

He should be but he won't. Each £1 that the DWP doesn't pay out to a genuine claimant is £1 saved as far as the government is concerned. It doesn't matter to them how the claimant who lives week to week is supposes to survive. Sink or swim as far as they're concerned. Sink and that's one less claimant. Swim and it proves you didn't need it in the first place.

I know a person who had her benefits stopped twice for not signing on at the correct time. The first time she was in a job interview. She told the Job Centre well in advance but it made no difference. The second time she was in a and e miscarrying. Again this made no difference. However, on both occasions, they used their discretion and 'only' stopped her benefit for two weeks as they deemed her excuses to be acceptable and therefore did not require a six week disqualification.

Despite this 'generosity' she still had to rely on friends, family and the foodbank and ended up owing money to people who had loaned her money to pay her rent.

That is completely disgusting, vq.

It's the way the system works.

I have heard of so much hardship caused by this "sanctioning" its a total disgrace,I have a lady volunteer who works with me twice a week who has been sanctioned because she did not complete what they thought was a full job search result for two weeks,she was told to get herself on-line with the internet and do her searches on -line,this lady can't afford the line rental for a phone but is worrying herself sick as the library which she uses now is only open 2.5 days a week at her last interview she had hand written all her searches which she found in local papers and shops she had visited to be told this was not acceptable and it should be in printed format,I dispare for her and her situation,she is on her own and has no close family for back up and has had to go cap in hand to CAB to be referred to foodbanks until her benefit claim is sorted at the end of this month as she has been moved onto universal credit and its a new claim for her.Its a pity a Government Minister has not been put through the same scenario to see how this stupid system is supposed to work.